A randomized, controlled trial of clomiphene citrate and intrauterine insemination in couples with unexplained infertility or surgically corrected endometriosis**Supported in part by a research grant from The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, D.C., and from Mead Johnson Laboratories, Evansville, Indiana.††Associate Member’s Prize Paper. Presented in part at the 45th Annual Meeting of The American Fertility Society, San Francisco, California, November 13 to 16, 1989

Overview of infertility

Having a child is an innate trait in animals, including humans, and is required for the continued existence of all animal species. Therefore, for most women, the inability to conceive or to do so in a timely fashion - termed infertility - to enable the continuation of the family line can be emotionally distressing. The definition of infertility is controversial because of its separation into primary and secondary. This is further complicated by the loosely used term subfertility, which relates to couples who have reduced ability because they take longer than the natural time to conceive, as opposed to those who are infertile and are entirely unable to conceive after 6 to 12 months, depending on age. Infertility evaluation requires a thorough male and female history, physical examination of both partners, and targeted investigation to determine the cause of infertility in a particular couple. Various treatments apply to infertile couples depending on the age of the female partner, the results of investigations, the reason for infertility, the presence of inheritance of abnormal genes, the pregnancy rates the couple is happy with, the resources available, how desperate the couple is to achieve a live birth, and how much they want to commit to treatment. Infertility treatment could include counseling and expectant management only, intrauterine insemination in a natural or stimulated cycle, and IVF and or ICSI. Men with azoospermia will need surgical options to retrieve sperm for IVF/ ICSI, but rarely for IUI. This review overviews infertility's etiology, diagnosis, investigations, and treatment.

The definition of unexplained infertility: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

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

RESULT(S)

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

RECOMMENDATION(S)

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

CONCLUSION(S)

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

Fertility-related considerations in endometriosis

Endometriosis and infertility often present together but the exact cause-effect mechanism of this association is unknown. Though there are several proposed mechanisms regarding the pathophysiology of endometriosis-related infertility, no one theory is universally accepted. Surgical exploration is gold standard for diagnosis but imaging modalities especially specialized ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging can highlight disease burden and aid in planning for surgical excision. Overall, medical therapy is ineffective for endometriosis-related infertility; however, surgery may be fertility enhancing in women with minimal stage disease and in women with large endometriomas. Assisted reproductive technology may be required with endometriosis-related infertility. Medically induced superovulation with intrauterine insemination is typically the first line; however, women with advanced disease may need a more aggressive form of treatment with in vitro fertilization.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

ETIC Endometriosis Treatment Italian Club, Alio L, Angioni S, Arena S, Bartiromo L, Bergamini V, Berlanda N, Bonin C, Busacca M, Candiani M, Centini G, D’Alterio MN, Di Cello A, Exacoustos C, Fedele L, Frattaruolo MP, Incandela D, Lazzeri L, Luisi S, Maiorana A, Maneschi F, Martire F, Massarotti C, Mattei A, Muzii L, Ottolina J, Perandini A, Perelli F, Pino I, Porpora MG, Raimondo D, Remorgida V, Seracchioli R, Solima E, Somigliana E, Sorrenti G, Venturella R, Vercellini P, Viganó P, Vignali M, Zullo F, Zupi E. When more is not better: 10 'don'ts' in endometriosis management. An ETIC * position statement

A network of endometriosis experts from 16 Italian academic departments and teaching hospitals distributed all over the country made a critical appraisal of the available evidence and definition of 10 suggestions regarding measures to be de-implemented. Strong suggestions were made only when high-quality evidence was available. The aim was to select 10 low-value medical interventions, characterized by an unfavorable balance between potential benefits, potential harms, and costs, which should be discouraged in women with endometriosis. The following suggestions were agreed by all experts: do not suggest laparoscopy to detect and treat superficial peritoneal endometriosis in infertile women without pelvic pain symptoms; do not recommend controlled ovarian stimulation and IUI in infertile women with endometriosis at any stage; do not remove small ovarian endometriomas (diameter <4 cm) with the sole objective of improving the likelihood of conception in infertile patients scheduled for IVF; do not remove uncomplicated deep endometriotic lesions in asymptomatic women, and also in symptomatic women not seeking conception when medical treatment is effective and well tolerated; do not systematically request second-level diagnostic investigations in women with known or suspected non-subocclusive colorectal endometriosis or with symptoms responding to medical treatment; do not recommend repeated follow-up serum CA-125 (or other currently available biomarkers) measurements in women successfully using medical treatments for uncomplicated endometriosis in the absence of suspicious ovarian cysts; do not leave women undergoing surgery for ovarian endometriomas and not seeking immediate conception without post-operative long-term treatment with estrogen-progestins or progestins; do not perform laparoscopy in adolescent women (<20 years) with moderate-severe dysmenorrhea and clinically suspected early endometriosis without prior attempting to relieve symptoms with estrogen-progestins or progestins; do not prescribe drugs that cannot be used for prolonged periods of time because of safety or cost issues as first-line medical treatment, unless estrogen-progestins or progestins have been proven ineffective, not tolerated, or contraindicated; do not use robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis outside research settings. Our proposal is to better address medical and surgical approaches to endometriosis de-implementing low-value interventions, with the aim to prevent unnecessary morbidity, limit psychological distress, and reduce the burden of treatment avoiding medical overuse and allowing a more equitable distribution of healthcare resources.

[First line management without IVF of infertility related to endometriosis: Result of medical therapy? Results of ovarian superovulation? Results of intrauterine insemination? CNGOF-HAS Endometriosis Guidelines]

INTRODUCTION

Using the structured methodology of French guidelines (HAS-CNGOF), the aim of this chapter was to formulate good practice points (GPP), in relation to optimal non-ART management of endometriosis related to infertility, based on the best available evidence in the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This guideline was produced by a group of experts in the field including a thorough systematic search of the literature (from January 1980 to March 2017). Were included only women with endometriosis related to infertility. For each recommendation, a grade (A-D, where A is the highest quality) was assigned based on the strength of the supporting evidence.

RESULTS

Management of endometriosis related to infertility should be multidisciplinary and take account into the pain, the global evaluation of infertile couple and the different phenotypes of endometriotic lesions (good practice point). Hormonal treatment for suppression of ovarian function should not prescribe to improve fertility (grade A). After laproscopy for endometriosis related to infertility, the Endometriosis Fertility Index should be used to counsel patients regarding duration of conventional treatments before undergoing ART (grade C). After laparoscopy surgery for infertile women with AFS/ASRM stage I/II endometriosis or superficial peritoneal endometriosis, controlled ovarian stimulation with or without intrauterine insemination could be used to enhance non-ART pregnancy rate (grade C). Gonadotrophins should be the first line therapy for the stimulation (grade B). The number of cycles before referring ART should not exceed up to 6 cycles (good practice point). No recommendation can be performed for non-ART management of deep infiltrating endometriosis or endometrioma, as suitable evidence is lacking.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Non-ART management is a possible option for the management of endometriosis related to infertility. Endometriosis Fertilty Index could be a useful tool for subsequent postoperative fertility management. Controlled ovarian stimulation can be proposed.

Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic endometriosis surgery: a 6 year experience

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to review 6 year experience on the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic endometriosis surgery.

METHODS

A cohort study was performed in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences using data from medical records of 1315 cases of patients with endometriosis undergoing laparoscopic surgery with follow-up of 6 to 72 months.

RESULTS

This study concerned a cohort of 1315 patients diagnosed with endometriosis operated between April 2010 and April 2016, 1086 (82.5%) of whom were in stage III and IV; 968 (73.61%) had endometrioma (regardless of having deep infiltrative endometriosis [DIE] or peritoneal involvement) and 347 (26.39%) of patients had either DIE or peritoneal involvement without endometrioma. Regarding the patients, unilateral endometrioma was statistically significant in the left ovary (p = .002). One hundred and thirty-three (10.7%) rectal wall, 7 (0.32%) sigmoid colon, 4 (0.18%) vagina, 125 (5.6%) ureter and 33 (1.52) bladder involvements were detected. Prior to operation, the pain VAS score was 8.23 ± 2.03, which decreased to 4.46 ± 2.47 in 93.07% of patients. Fifty-three patients (6.56%) needed reoperation. Sixty-six (33.1%) infertile women had spontaneous pregnancy and 15 (25%) became pregnant using intrauterine insemination (IUI) or assisted reproductive technique (ART) post-operatively.

CONCLUSION

Surgical treatment of endometriosis seems to be an effective treatment. DIE can be present in the absence of endometrioma. The rate of left endometrioma is higher due to the pressure effect of the sigmoid colon. Nonetheless, if an expert surgeon performs this procedure, not only the rate of post-operative complications, but also the possibility of recurrence would decrease.

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

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

Evidence-based approach to unexplained infertility: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the available evidence for the efficacy of various treatments for unexplained infertility.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Patients aged 18-40 years with unexplained infertility.

INTERVENTION(S)

Clomiphene citrate, letrozole, timed intercourse, IUI, gonadotropins, IVF, and IVF-intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live birth rate.

RESULT(S)

Thirteen studies with a total of 3,081 patients were identified by systematic search and met inclusion criteria. The available literature demonstrates that expectant management may be comparable to treatment with clomiphene and timed intercourse or IUI. Clomiphene may be more effective than letrozole, and treatment with gonadotropins seems more effective, albeit with significantly higher risk of multiple gestations than either oral agent. On the basis of current data, IVF, with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection, is no more effective than gonadotropins with IUI for unexplained infertility.

CONCLUSION(S)

Adequately powered, randomized controlled trials that compare all of the available treatments for unexplained infertility are needed. Until such data are available, clinicians should individualize the management of unexplained infertility with appropriate counseling regarding the empiric nature of current treatment options including IVF.

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.

Does progesterone supplementation improve pregnancy rates in clomiphene citrate and intrauterine insemination treatment cycles?

AIM

To investigate the effect of empiric use of luteal phase progesterone supplementation to improve endometrial receptivity in women undergoing treatment with clomiphene citrate in combination with intrauterine insemination (CC-IUI).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis.

SETTING

University fertility center.

PATIENTS

426 CC-IUI cycles from 292 patients with unexplained infertility.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were treated with micronized intravaginal progesterone 100 mg twice daily beginning approximately three days after CC-IUI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy per initiated cycle as defined by presence of fetal heart rate on ultrasound.

RESULTS

Clinical pregnancy rate was higher in patients receiving luteal phase support compared to patients not receiving luteal phase support (odds ratio: 2.04; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-4.14) after adjusting for all factors in the analysis using a multivariate logistic regression model. Age at the start of the cycle, BMI and CC dose were not shown to have an effect on clinical pregnancy rates. Patients with endometrial lining (EML) thickness 6-8 mm and >8 mm had increased clinical pregnancy rates compared to EML <6 mm independent of luteal phase progesterone use. Patients who appear to receive the greatest benefit of progesterone supplementation are in the 6-8 mm EML cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Luteal phase progesterone supplementation in CC-IUI cycles can improve endometrial receptivity as judged by the improved clinical pregnancy rates as the primary outcome.

Current strategies for endometriosis management

Endometriosis is a common gynecologic disorder that persists throughout the reproductive years. Although endometriosis is a surgical diagnosis, medical management with ovarian suppression remains the mainstay of long-term management with superimposed surgical intervention when needed. The goal of surgery should be excision or ablation of all visible disease to minimize risk of recurrence and need for repeat surgeries. When infertility is the presenting symptom, surgical therapy in addition to assisted reproductive technology can improve chances of conception; however, the treatment approach depends on stage of disease and other patient characteristics that affect fecundity.

Ovulation induction

Before initiating ovulation induction, it is important to evaluate the underlying cause of a patient's anovulation and to make lifestyle modifications or treat underlying medical conditions, as appropriate. Here, ovulation induction agents are discussed with attention to their pharmacology, indications for use, therapy regimens, and efficacy. Adjuvant therapies and appropriate monitoring are also reviewed.

The evaluation of pre and post processing semen analysis parameters at the time of intrauterine insemination in couples diagnosed with male factor infertility and pregnancy rates based on stimulation agent. A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To identify pre or post processing semen analysis parameters that may be predictive of successful pregnancy in couples with male factor infertility undergoing intra uterine insemination (IUI). To evaluate the pregnancy rate based on ovulation inducing agent in couples with male factor infertility per the 2010 world health organization criteria treated with IUI.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective study was performed at Stanford University medical center. All couples with male factor infertility fitting inclusion criteria were included over a 2 year period of time. 147 couples with male factor infertility were included and 356 IUIs were analyzed. All subjects in this study had Kruger strict analysis >4% normal forms. Logistic regression analysis was used to control for confounding effects and multiplicity.

RESULTS

The overall pregnancy rate was 5.3%. No parameter in either the pre or post analysis predicted pregnancy. Furthermore, it was found that natural cycle and letrazole treatment had similar pregnancy rates (3% and 3%) p=ns. Similar outcomes were also observed between clomiphene citrate and gonadotropin stimulated cycles (7.5% and 6.0%) p=ns.

CONCLUSIONS

Total motile sperm count which has been found to be a predictor of pregnancy when evaluated in isolation, may be due to a confounding effect. These low pregnancy rates should be considered when deciding whether to suggest IUI and when selecting a protocol for ovulation induction for couples with male factor infertility.

Dynamics of nitric oxide, altered follicular microenvironment, and oocyte quality in women with endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To study follicular microenvironment in terms of free radical dynamics, oocyte quality, and assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes among women with (group A) and without (group B) endometriosis.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

University ART center.

PATIENT(S)

Women with and without endometriosis undergoing ART (n=28).

INTERVENTION(S)

Follicular fluid (FF), granulosa cells (GCs), immature oocytes (IOs), and ART data on sibling cohort oocytes in groups A and B were compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

ART live birth outcomes, maturation, and aging among in vitro matured (IVM) oocytes, nitrate levels in FF, and nitrotyrosine (NT) footprints and apoptosis in the GCs.

RESULT(S)

Clinical characteristics and ART live birth outcomes were no different between groups A and B. Women from group A had significantly lower peak serum E2 (2,068.8±244.6 pg/mL vs. 2,756.2±205.0 pg/mL) and higher apoptosis (80.0% vs. 22.2%) and NT staining (70.0% vs. 22.2%) in GCs compared with group B. Fewer IOs underwent IVM to MII (0.6±0.3) in group A compared with group B (1.4±0.2). IVM oocytes had significantly higher incidence of cortical granule loss (83.3% vs. 24.0%) and spindle disruption (66.7% vs. 16.0%) and higher zona pellucida dissolution timing (133.8±9.4 s vs. 90.5±5.8 s) in group A compared with group B. FF nitrate levels were significantly higher in women who failed to conceive in group A (478.2±43.1 nmol/L) compared with those that did conceive (173.3±19.0 nmol/L).

CONCLUSION(S)

Increased protein nitration, GC apoptosis, resistance to IVM, and oocyte aging indicate the involvement of oxidative dysregulation of NO in the pathophysiology of altered follicular milieu and poor oocyte quality in women with endometriosis.

Endometriosis: pathogenesis and treatment

Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial-type mucosa outside the uterine cavity. Of the proposed pathogenic theories (retrograde menstruation, coelomic metaplasia and Müllerian remnants), none explain all the different types of endometriosis. According to the most convincing model, the retrograde menstruation hypothesis, endometrial fragments reaching the pelvis via transtubal retrograde flow, implant onto the peritoneum and abdominal organs, proliferate and cause chronic inflammation with formation of adhesions. The number and amount of menstrual flows together with genetic and environmental factors determines the degree of phenotypic expression of the disease. Endometriosis is estrogen-dependent, manifests during reproductive years and is associated with pain and infertility. Dysmenorrhoea, deep dyspareunia, dyschezia and dysuria are the most frequently reported symptoms. Standard diagnosis is carried out by direct visualization and histologic examination of lesions. Pain can be treated by excising peritoneal implants, deep nodules and ovarian cysts, or inducing lesion suppression by abolishing ovulation and menstruation through hormonal manipulation with progestins, oral contraceptives and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. Medical therapy is symptomatic, not cytoreductive; surgery is associated with high recurrence rates. Although lesion eradication is considered a fertility-enhancing procedure, the benefit on reproductive performance is moderate. Assisted reproductive technologies constitute a valid alternative. Endometriosis is associated with a 50% increase in the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer, but preventive interventions are feasible.

Prognostic profiles and the effectiveness of assisted conception: secondary analyses of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

At present, it is unclear which treatment strategy is best for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. We hypothesized that the prognostic profile influences the effectiveness of assisted conception. We addressed this issue by analysing individual patient data (IPD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We performed an IPD analysis of published RCTs on treatment strategies for subfertile couples. Eligible studies were identified from Cochrane systematic reviews and we also searched Medline and EMBASE. The authors of RCTs that compared expectant management (EM), intracervical insemination (ICI), intrauterine insemination (IUI), all three with or without controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and IVF in couples with unexplained or male subfertility, and had reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy as an outcome measure, were invited to share their data. For each individual patient the chance of natural conception was calculated with a validated prognostic model. We constructed prognosis-by-treatment curves and tested whether there was a significant interaction between treatment and prognosis.

RESULTS

We acquired data from 8 RCTs, including 2550 couples. In three studies (n = 954) the more invasive treatment strategies tended to be less effective in couples with a high chance of natural conception but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P-value for interaction between prognosis and treatment outcome were 0.71, 0.31 and 0.19). In one study (n = 932 couples) the strategies with COS (ICI and IUI) led to higher pregnancy rates than unstimulated strategies (ICI 8% versus 15%, IUI 13% versus 22%), regardless of prognosis (P-value for interaction in all comparisons >0.5), but at the expense of a high twin rate in the COS strategies (ICI 6% versus 23% and IUI 3% versus 30%, respectively). In two studies (n = 373 couples), the more invasive treatment strategies tended to be more effective in couples with a good prognosis but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P-value for interaction: 0.38 and 0.68). In one study (n = 253 couples) the differential effect of prognosis on treatment effect was limited (P-value for interaction 0.52), perhaps because prognosis was incorporated in the inclusion criteria. The only study that compared EM with IVF included 38 couples, too small for a precise estimate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this IPD analysis of couples with unexplained or male subfertility, we did not find a large differential effect of prognosis on the effectiveness of fertility treatment with IUI, COS or IVF.

Predictive factors for pregnancy during the first four intrauterine insemination cycles using gonadotropin

PURPOSE

Although a variety of factors have been reported as affecting pregnancy rates after intrauterine insemination (IUI), there have been conflicting results on prognostic factors. This study aimed to determine predictive factors for pregnancy in patients undergoing the first four IUI cycles.

METHODS

A total of 348 IUI cycles using clomiphene citrate or letrozole combined with gonadotropin, or gonadotropin only were analyzed. Baseline clinical characteristics, variables related to ovulation induction and sperm parameters were compared between pregnant (n = 54) and non-pregnant groups (n = 294). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors that could predict a pregnancy.

RESULTS

The overall clinical pregnancy rate was 15.5% (54/348) per cycle and 30.0% (54/180) per couple. During the first four IUI cycles, logistic regression analysis revealed that woman who were 39 years or older (OR: 0.263, 95% CI: 0.076-0.906, p = 0.034), longer duration of infertility (OR: 0.967, 95% CI: 0.942-0.993, p = 0.012), endometriosis (versus unexplained infertility; OR: 0.177, 95% CI: 0.040-0.775, p = 0.022) and endometrial thickness below 7 mm (OR: 0.114, 95% CI: 0.015-0.862, p = 0.035) were unfavorable factors to predict clinical pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with old age, longer duration of infertility, the presence of endometriosis or thin endometrium in the preovulatory phase may have unfavorable outcomes during the first four IUI cycles.

Use of clomiphene citrate in infertile women: a committee opinion

This committee opinion describes the use of clomiphene citrate, including indications, use, monitoring, and side effects. There is also a discussion of adjuvants and alternatives to clomiphene citrate therapy.

Endometriosis and infertility: a review of the pathogenesis and treatment of endometriosis-associated infertility

Endometriois has been associated with infertility; however, the mechanisms by which it affects fertility are still not fully understood. This article reviews the proposed mechanisms of endometriosis pathogenesis, its effects on fertility, and treatments of endometriosis-associated infertility. Theories on the cause of the disease include retrograde menstruation, coelomic metaplasia, altered immunity, stem cells, and genetics. Endometriosis affects gametes and embryos, the fallopian tubes and embryo transport, and the eutopic endometrium; these abnormalities likely all impact fertility. Current treatment options of endometriosis-associated infertility include surgery, superovulation with intrauterine insemination, and in vitro fertilization. We also discuss potential future treatments for endometriosis-related infertility.

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.

Ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination at the quarter centennial: implications for the multiple births epidemic

Ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination (OS/IUI), a mainstay of current infertility therapy and a common antecedent to IVF, is a significant driver of the multiple births epidemic. Redress of this challenge, now marking its quarter centennial, will require a rethinking of current practice patterns. Herein we explore prospects for prevention, mitigation, and eventual resolution. We conclude that the multiple births attributable to OS/IUI may not be entirely preventable but that the outlook for their mitigation is promising, if in need of solidification. Specifically, we observe that low-dose (≤ 75 IU) gondotropin, clomiphene, and especially off-label letrozole regimens outperform high-dose (≥ 150 IU) gonadotropin counterparts in the gestational plurality category while maintaining comparable per-cycle pregnancy rates. Accordingly we recommend that, subject to appropriate exceptions, high-dose gonadotropin regimens be used sparingly and that whenever possible they be replaced with emerging alternatives. Finally, we posit that OS/IUI is not likely to be superseded by IVF absent further commoditization and thus greater affordability.

Managing endometriosis-associated infertility

Endometriosis is associated with infertility; however, the etiology of this association is unclear, thus complicating management. Several mechanisms of pathogenesis have been proposed; however, no one theory has been implicated. Medical therapy can be helpful in managing symptoms, but does not improve pregnancy rates. The role of surgical treatment remains controversial. There is little data regarding ovulation induction treatments for endometriosis only, whereas superovulation with intrauterine insemination has shown modest improvement in pregnancy rates in women who may have endometriosis. The most effective treatment for endometriosis-associated infertility is in vitro fertilization. Recent focus on proteomics and genetics of the disease may aid in optimizing treatment options.

New perspectives for unexplained infertility

For patients diagnosed with unexplained infertility, recent information has allowed the diagnosis to be viewed in a new light. With a better understanding of the efficacy and use of empiric therapies, unexplained infertility has gone from a diagnosis filled with uncertainty and despair to one that when treated appropriately has a positive outlook. Appropriate initial treatment for unexplained infertility can be managed in the office by generalists with the administration of oral ovulation induction medications combined with intrauterine insemination.

Comparison of the effect of two different doses of recombinant gonadotropin for ovarian stimulation on the outcome of intrauterine insemination

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify an optimal stimulation protocol for intrauterine insemination (IUI) to obtain an acceptable pregnancy rate and low frequency of multiple pregnancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 340 patients, who received intrauterine insemination because of ovulation dysfunction, were enrolled in this study. Group I consisted of 203 patients who received recombinant FSH (r-FSH) 150U every other day as an ovulation induction agent. Group II consisted of 137 patients who received r-FSH 100U every other day as an ovulation induction agent. All patients in both groups also received clomiphene citrate 100 mg/day for consecutive five days from the fifth day of the cycle. Only patients with at least two follicles >18 mm on the human chorionic gonadotropin injection days were included in this study.

RESULTS

The clinical pregnancy rate was 14.8% (30/203) in Group I compared with 20.4% (28/137) in Group II, p > 0.05. The incidence of multiple pregnancy was 41.7% (10/24) in Group I compared with 12.5% (3/24) in Group II, p < 0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

The concurrent use of low-dose r-FSH and clomiphene citrate would seem not only to be cost-effective but also highly satisfactory in that it prevents high-order multiple pregnancies.

[Assisted reproductive technologies place]

There are three kinds of infertility treatment: medical treatment, surgical treatment and assisted reproductive technology (ART). ART includes intra uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). ART technologies made a lot of progress last years and their field of applications extended. Through literature reviews, IUI is recommended for unexplained infertility and discussed for male or cervical infertility. IVF is recommended for tubal and unexplained infertility. Limits between IVF and ICSI in case of male infertility remains unclear. In non mal infertility ICSI is not recommended.

Clomiphene citrate for unexplained subfertility in women

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of clomiphene citrate has been demonstrated in the treatment of subfertility associated with infrequent or irregular ovulation. The physiologic effects and clinical benefits in ovulatory women with unexplained subfertility are less clear. The drug is associated with an increased risk of multiple pregnancy and a suggestion of potentially increased ovarian cancer risks. In light of these concerns, defining the effectiveness of clomiphene citrate for ovulatory women with unexplained subfertility is extremely important.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of clomiphene citrate in improving pregnancy outcomes in women with unexplained subfertility, used in a dose range of 50 to 250 mg for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was live births.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register (June 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), EMBASE (1980 to June 2009) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials were included. Quasi-randomised designs were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Fourteen potentially relevant trials were identified of which seven were included in this review. All trials were assessed for risk of bias using standardised Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

Data relating to 1159 participants from seven trials were collated. There was no evidence that clomiphene citrate was more effective than no treatment or placebo for live birth (odds ratio (OR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.38; P = 0.41) or for clinical pregnancy per woman randomised both with intrauterine insemination (IUI) (OR 2.40, 95% CI 0.70 to 8.19; P = 0.16), without IUI (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.66; P = 0.91) and without IUI but using human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.80; P = 0.35). It should be noted that heterogeneity between studies ranged from 34% to 58% using the I(2) statistic.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of clinical benefit of clomiphene citrate for unexplained fertility. When making this treatment choice, potential side effects should be discussed. These include the increased risk of multiple pregnancy and the concern that use for more that 12 cycles has been associated with a three-fold increase in risk of ovarian cancer.

Basic infertility including polycystic ovary syndrome

Infertility in women has many possible causes and must be approached systematically. The most common cause of medically treatable infertility is the polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). This syndrome is common in young women and is the cause of anovulatory infertility in 70% of cases. It is therefore an important condition to screen and manage in primary care medical settings. In the past 10 years, insulin sensitization with weight loss or metformin has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for PCOS infertility that eliminates the risk of multiple pregnancy and may reduce the risk of early pregnancy loss as compared with ovulation-inductor drugs. The authors believe metformin should be considered as first-line therapy because it has the advantage to allow for normal single ovulation, for reduced early pregnancy loss, and, most importantly, lifestyle modifications and weight loss before pregnancy. Losing weight not only improves fertility but also reduces adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with obesity.

What is the most valid comparison treatment in trials of intrauterine insemination, timed or uninfluenced intercourse? A systematic review and meta-analysis of indirect evidence

BACKGROUND

Timed intercourse (TI), which is the usual control treatment in trials of intrauterine insemination (IUI), is not a typical coital activity and could impair fertility. This review summarizes the trials of IUI of male partner's prepared semen among subfertile couples according to whether the control group had TI or expectant management.

METHODS

A search of relevant databases and bibliographies until February 2008 yielded 150 citations of which 31 were potentially relevant and 11 met all criteria. The total estimates of the differences in pregnancy rates per couple were calculated with weights equal to the inverse variance. The primary analysis was a categorical meta-analysis by the type of control treatment (TI or expectant management).

RESULTS

In 11 trials with 13 comparisons of IUI and intercourse among 1329 couples with subfertility, the average difference in pregnancy rate between IUI and controls was 6.1% in trials with TI and 3.9% in trials with expectant management, as the control. The adjusted indirect estimate of the difference between the types of control groups was 2.8% (95% CI -6.3, 10.7). The difference by type of control treatment was not significant, neither in the 11 most relevant trials (P = 0.82), nor in a broader group of 19 trials and 2512 patients (P = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

The additional benefit accruing to IUI, where TI is the control, is not significant, but it is consistent with the possibility that pregnancy may be less likely in TI controls than in expectant management controls.