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

Timed intercourse in association with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as the first-line treatment of couples with unexplained subfertility

OBJECTIVE

To report on the pregnancy outcomes of timed intercourse (TI) with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) as the first-line treatment of unexplained subfertility, and provide some evidence on the factors involved.

METHODS

The records of couples treated between January 2016 and March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Couples were selected for TI based on standard infertility evaluation. Semen analysis by swim-up was conducted and the total motile sperm count (TMSC) obtained. The main outcome measured was the clinical pregnancy rates. Data were analyzed with t test, Pearson's Chi-squared test, and the Wald test for logistic regression with p≤0.05.

RESULTS

The records of 275 couples (449 cycles) were included in the analysis. Patients underwent TI up to six attempts. Patient- and cycle-based pregnancy rates were 18.55% and 13.14%, respectively. Eight patients got pregnant twice, resulting in a cumulative pregnancy rate of 21.4%. Women that did not get pregnant demonstrated a statistically higher mean age value than women who did (p=0.0186). Logistic regression indicated that for every year added to the woman's age, the chances of pregnancy reduced by 6.45%, and for cycles with TMSC ≥ 5 million, the chances of pregnancy were 1.91 times higher when compared to TMSC < 5 million.

CONCLUSIONS

TI with COH should be considered as the first-line treatment for selected couples with unexplained subfertility before more traumatic and costly IVF treatments were considered. The findings can assist doctors to conduct a more educated counselling concerning the chances patients have to get pregnant with TI.

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.

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.

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.

Intrauterine insemination versus timed intercourse with clomiphene citrate in polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of intrauterine insemination vs. timed intercourse with clomiphene citrate as a first-line treatment for anovulatory infertility associated with polycystic ovary syndrome.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial following the CONSORT criteria.

SETTING

A university hospital and a private practice setting.

PATIENTS

188 women (525 cycles) with polycystic ovary syndrome.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Women received three consecutive cycles of ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate and intrauterine insemination (n=93, 259 cycles) or three consecutive cycles of clomiphene citrate with timed intercourse (n=95, 266 cycles).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical pregnancy rate per cycle, number of growing and mature follicles, serum estradiol, endometrial thickness at the hCG day, serum progesterone, ovulation, miscarriage and live birth rates.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the two groups regarding the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle or per woman (8.49 vs. 7.89% and 23.6 vs. 22.1%; p=0.26 and p=0.33, respectively). Two twin pregnancies occurred in each group. Miscarriage and live birth rates were comparable (18.1 vs. 19% and 19.35 vs. 17.89%; p=0.31 and p=0.33, respectively). No ectopic, higher-order pregnancies or cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurred. No differences were found regarding the number of follicles, serum progesterone, ovulation rates, estradiol levels or endometrial thickness at the hCG day (7.7±0.4 vs. 7.5±0.6mm; p=0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate and timed intercourse is as effective as that with intrauterine insemination for achieving pregnancy in polycystic ovary syndrome and could represent the initial treatment option, being less invasive and less expensive than intrauterine insemination.

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 IUI improves the live birth rate compared with timed intercourse (TI), both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorder and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched March 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2005), EMBASE (1980 to November 2005), 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 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 analyses and sensitivity analyses were done where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

In the six trials where IUI was compared with TI, both in stimulated cycles, there was evidence of an increased chance of pregnancy (six RCTs, 517 women: OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.50). A significant increase in pregnancy rate was also found for women where IUI with OH was compared with IUI in a natural cycle (three RCTs, 415 women: OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.71). However, the trials provided insufficient data to investigate the impact of IUI with or without OH on several important outcomes including live birth, 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 (one RCT, 51 women: OR 4.05, 95% CI 0.39 to 41.87). No RCTs were found for the other two comparisons.

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 both in stimulated cycles. 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.