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

Association between follicle size, endometrial thickness, and types of ovarian stimulation (Clomiphene citrate and Letrozole) with biochemical pregnancy rate in women undergone intrauterine insemination

OBJECTIVE

There was also a lack of data regarding the effect of follicle size, endometrial thickness, and ovarian stimulation as predictors of intrauterine insemination (IUI) success rate in Indonesia, especially in the Aster Clinic and Bandung Fertility Centre. This study was performed to explore the relationship between follicle size, endometrial thickness, and types of ovarian stimulation (Clomiphene citrate/CC vs Letrozole) with biochemical pregnancy rate in women undergone IUI. We performed a case-control study in 122 women aged 20-40 years with unexplained infertility who had completed the IUI program for a maximum of three cycles. Data were extracted from medical records. Independent T-test and multivariate analyses were used to analyse the difference between variables using IBM SPSS 24.0. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULT

Follicle sizes of 18-22 mm in both Clomiphene citrate (CC) and Letrozole groups were shown to increase biochemical pregnancy rate (P = 0.001). There is no relationship between endometrial thickness and pregnancy rate. Biochemical pregnancy rate in women using Letrozole was 1.513 times higher than women using CC. The follicle size of 18-22 mm and using Letrozole rather than CC as ovarian stimulators are predictive factors associated with a higher pregnancy rate in women undergone IUI.

Factors associated with spontaneous miscarriage risk in IUI treatment: A retrospectively cohort of 31,933 cycles

To determine the factors associated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) miscarriages and reduce the IUI miscarriage rate, a retrospective study was performed by reviewing 31,933 IUI cycles from 2006 to 2018. The overall there were 14.50% clinical pregnancies, and 16.74% miscarriages. Logistic regression revealed the following three predictive variables: females aged ≥ 35 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.131; p < 0.001), spontaneous miscarriage history (OR = 1.513; p = 0.005), and ovarian stimulation schemes such as clomiphene citrate (CC) (OR = 1.459; p = 0.003). The natural cycle led to a lower miscarriage rate for patients without spontaneous miscarriage history both for those over 35 years old (OR = 0.402; p = 0.034) and for those under 35 years old (OR = 0.806; p = 0.017). Gonadotropin (Gn) showed the lowest miscarriage rate for patients without abortion history, though no significant differences were found. Patients under 35 with a history of miscarriage were protected from miscarriage by using CC and Gn together (OR = 0.516; p = 0.032). No significant differences were found between various ovarian protocols when patients with abortion history were aged ≥ 35 years (p = 0.606). CC + Gn showed the lowest miscarriage rate. In conclusion, the natural cycle could be suggested for infertility couples to minimize abortion risk. When ovarian induction is required, CC + Gn had the lowest miscarriage rate for women with a history of spontaneous miscarriage while Gn is more successful for individuals without such a history.

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

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Dutch Trial register NL5455 (NTR5599).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

18 December 2015.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

26 January 2017.

Predicting success of intrauterine insemination using a clinically based scoring system

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Multiple gestation associated with infertility therapy: a committee opinion

This Committee Opinion provides practitioners with suggestions to reduce the likelihood of iatrogenic multiple gestation resulting from infertility treatment. This document replaces the document of the same name previously published in 2012 (Fertil Steril 2012;97:825-34 by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine).

Association Between Type of Infertility and Live Birth in Couples With a Single Intrauterine Insemination Resulting in Pregnancy: A Propensity Score Matching Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have described the relationship between the type of infertility and live birth in patients treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI). We focused on this issue and attempted to explore it.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 2,256 infertile patients who underwent their first IUI cycle and were subsequently diagnosed with a clinical pregnancy at Ji'an Women and Child Health Care Hospital between 2007 and 2018. Inductees were divided into primary infertility (1,680 patients) and secondary infertility groups (876 patients). Following 1:1 propensity score matching to obtain balanced data, the COX proportional hazards model, landmark analysis, and subgroup analysis were used to assess the association between infertility types and live birth rates. Subsequently, a sensitivity analysis was employed to evaluate the potential effect of unmeasured confounding on outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 1,486 patients who were identified as a matched cohort, 743 were in the primary infertility group and the remaining patients were in another group. A total of 1,143 patients had live births during 431,009 person-days of follow-up (average 290.0 days). Throughout the follow-up period, patients with secondary infertility demonstrated more live births than patients with primary infertility (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.30; P = .007). More details were observed in the landmark analysis. Live birth rates were similar in both groups within 316 days of follow-up (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.14; P = .269), whereas the opposite was found between 316 days of follow-up and delivery day (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.34; P = .004). This was also obtained in a subgroup analysis of patients younger than 35 years old and patients treated with natural cycles (NCs) and IUIs.

CONCLUSION

Among the infertile patients who underwent a single natural or stimulated cycle followed by IUI and had later pregnancies, full-term young secondary infertility mothers (<35 years of age) had a greater chance of having viable babies than the primary infertility ones. The latter may get more benefits when undergoing ovarian stimulation and IUI rather than NC-IUI.

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.

Clomiphene Citrate versus Recombinant FSH in intrauterine insemination cycles with mono- or bi-follicular development

Objective:

The present study aims to assess the success of controlled ovarian stimulation in intrauterine insemination cycles stimulated by recombinant-FSH and Clomiphene citrate for either mono- or bi-follicular development.

Methods:

We assessed 870 infertile patients treated with controlled ovarian stimulation in intrauterine insemination cycles at a university-based infertility clinic between January 2012 and December 2017. We compared the cycles stimulated by clomiphene citrate and recombinant-FSH in two set-ups; mono- and bi-follicular development. The main outcome measure was the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle.

Results:

The demographic and cycle parameters were similar between the groups, except for endometrial thickness on the day of hCG administration, which was higher in the recombinant-FSH group than the clomiphene citrate group. The overall clinical pregnancy rates in clomiphene citrate and recombinant-FSH groups were 9.8% and 10.3%, respectively (p=0.940). Regarding the entire cohort, clinical pregnancy was significantly higher in cases of bi-follicular development when compared to mono-follicular development (16.8% vs. 10.2%, respectively; p=0.009).

Conclusions:

Clomiphene citrate and recombinant-FSH have similar success rates in terms of clinical pregnancy, in either mono-follicular development or bi-follicular development. Clomiphene citrate and recombinant-FSH cycles resulted in comparable rates of bi-follicular development, which significantly increases clinical pregnancy rate. Clomiphene citrate and recombinant-FSH have similar success rates in terms of clinical pregnancy, in either mono-follicular development or bi-follicular development.

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of ovarian stimulation agents for IUI in couples with unexplained subfertility

STUDY QUESTION

Which agent for ovarian stimulation (OS) is the most cost-effective option in terms of net benefit for couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In settings where a live birth is valued at €3000 or less, between €3000 and €55 000 and above €55 000, clomiphene citrate (CC), Letrozole and gonadotrophins were the most cost-effective option in terms of net benefit, respectively.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

IUI-OS is a common first-line treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility and its increased uptake over the past decades and related personal or reimbursed costs are pressing concerns to patients and health service providers. However, there is no consensus on a protocol for conducting IUI-OS, with differences between countries, clinics and settings in the number of cycles, success rates, the agent for OS and the maximum number of dominant follicles in order to minimise the risk of a multiple pregnancy. In view of this uncertainty and the association with costs, guidance is needed on the cost-effectiveness of OS agents for IUI-OS.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We developed a decision-analytic model based on a decision tree that follows couples with unexplained subfertility from the start of IUI-OS to a protocoled maximum of six cycles, assuming couples receive four cycles on average within one year. We chose the societal perspective, which coincides with other perspectives such as that from health care providers, as the treatments are identical except for the stimulation agent. We based our model on parameters from a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials for IUI-OS. We compared the following three agents: CC (oral medication), Letrozole (oral medication) and gonadotrophins (subcutaneous injection).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The main health outcomes were cumulative live birth and multiple pregnancy. As the procedures are identical except for the agent used, we only considered direct medical costs of the agent during four cycles. The main cost-effectiveness measures were the differences in costs divided by the differences in cumulative live birth (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER) and the probability of the highest net monetary benefit in which costs for an agent were deducted from the live births gained. The live birth rate for IUI using CC was taken from trials adhering to strict cancellation criteria included in a network meta-analysis and extrapolated to four cycles. We took the relative risks for the live birth rate after Letrozole and gonadotrophins versus CC from that same network meta-analysis to estimate the remaining absolute live birth rates. The uncertainty around live birth rates, relative effectiveness and costs was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which we drew values from distributions and repeated this procedure 20 000 times. In addition, we changed model assumptions to assess their influence on our results.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The agent with the lowest cumulative live birth rate over 4 IUI-OS cycles conducted within one year was CC (29.4%), followed by Letrozole (32.0%) and gonadotrophins (34.5%). The average costs per four cycles were €362, €434 and €1809, respectively. The ICER of Letrozole versus CC was €2809 per additional live birth, whereas the ICER of gonadotrophins versus Letrozole was €53 831 per additional live birth. When we assume a live birth is valued at €3000 or less, CC had the highest probability of maximally 65% to achieve the highest net benefit. Between €3000 and €55 000, Letrozole had the highest probability of maximally 62% to achieve the highest net benefit. Assuming a monetary value of €55 000 or more, gonadotrophins had the highest probability of maximally 56% to achieve the highest net benefit.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our model focused on population level and was thus based on average costs for the average number of four cycles conducted. We also based the model on a number of key assumptions. We changed model assumptions to assess the influence of these assumptions on our results.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The high uncertainty surrounding our results indicate that more research is necessary on the relative effectiveness of using CC, Letrozole or gonadotrophins for IUI-OS in terms of the cumulative live birth rate. We suggest that in the meantime, CC or Letrozole are the preferred choice of agent.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by ZonMw Doelmatigheidsonderzoek, grant 80-85200-98-91072. The funder had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of this work. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research support from ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

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

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

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

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) with or without letrozole for unexplained or mild male factor infertility: A randomized pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To study the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with and without letrozole in couples with unexplained or mild male factor infertility STUDY DESIGN: We performed a randomized pilot study including 100 couples with unexplained or mild male factor infertility in the Reproductive Medicine Centre of Peking University Third Hospital in China. The couples scheduled for IUI were randomized to IUI with or without ovarian stimulation (letrozole) for up to 3 cycles within a time horizon of 4 months. Women in the letrozole group received 5 mg oral letrozole daily starting from cycle day 3-5 for 5 days. Women in the natural cycle IUI group did not receive any ovarian stimulation before IUI. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The study was registered under trial number NCT03455426 RESULTS: Between March 2018 and January 2019, 158 couples were eligible to participate after initial screening and 100 (63.3 %) couples agreed to participate. Of the 100 recruited couples, 50 were randomly allocated to IUI with letrozole and 50 to natural cycle IUI. Live birth occurred in 12 women (24.0 %) in the letrozole group and 10 women (20.0 %) in the natural cycle group (RR 1.20 (95 % CI 0.57-2.52)). Clinical pregnancy rates were 28 % and 26 % in the letrozole group and natural cycle group respectively (RR 1.08 (95 % CI 0.56-2.05). There were no multiple pregnancies in both groups. Patients were willing to be randomized and useful information was gained to plan a definitive trial.

CONCLUSIONS

We showed that an RCT comparing IUI with letrozole versus natural cycle IUI in couples with unexplained or mild male factor infertility is feasible and acceptable.

Treatment Strategies for Unexplained Infertility

Unexplained infertility is a common diagnosis among couples with infertility. Pragmatic treatment options in these couples are directed at trying to improve chances to conceive, and consequently intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation and in vitro fertilization (IVF) are standard clinical practice, while expectant management remains an important alternative. While evidence on IVF or IUI with ovarian stimulation versus expectant management was inconclusive, these interventions seem more effective in couples with a poor prognosis of natural conception. Strategies such as strict cancellation criteria and single-embryo transfer aim to reduce multiple pregnancies without compromising cumulative live birth. We propose a prognosis-based approach to manage couples with unexplained infertility so as to expose less couples to unnecessary interventions and less mothers and children to the potential adverse effects of ovarian stimulation or laboratory procedures.

Optimal time interval between hysteroscopic polypectomy and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer: A retrospective study

The optimal timing of frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer following hysteroscopic polypectomy is an important and unanswered clinical question. In this study, we conducted a retrospective survey of cases from an infertility center at an academic hospital. We reviewed the charts of all patients who received in-vitro fertilization and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers (FBT) at the center from January 2009 to November 2019. One hundred and two patients with prior diagnosis of endometrial polyp that were treated with hysteroscopic polypectomy before received their first FBT at the center were identified as cases. Patients without prior diagnosis of endometrial polyp, and who received their first FBT at the center were defined as controls. Controls were enrolled at a 1-to-1 ratio to the cases. The cases and controls did not show differences in baseline characteristics, endometrial thickness, or the number of good blastocysts transferred. The clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates were similar. Regarding the optimal interval between polypectomy and FBT, a cut-off of 120 days was identified from the ROC curve. A stratified analysis showed that when FBT was performed within an interval of 120 days after polypectomy, there were higher biochemical pregnancy rates (73.2%, 45.2%; OR 3.3; P = .007) and clinical pregnancy rates (64.8%, 41.9%; OR 2.54; P = .032), when compared with intervals greater than 120 days. There were no significant differences in implantation and live birth rates. In conclusion, pregnancy rates following FBT in patients who had received prior endometrial polypectomy were comparable to pregnancy rates after FBT in patients without endometrial polyp. Subgroup analysis showed that an interval greater than 120 days between hysteroscopic polypectomy and FBT was associated with decreased pregnancy rates. Patients who wish to receive embryo transfer after polypectomy should wait no longer than 120 days.

Cumulative live birth rates following insemination with donor spermatozoa in single women, same-sex couples and heterosexual patients

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the cumulative live birth rate (LBR) following donor intrauterine insemination (IUI-D) treatment in a large, retrospective, single-centre cohort of single women, same-sex couples and heterosexual patients?

DESIGN

Outcomes from 8922 treatments performed in 3333 consecutive women (45% single, 43% from same-sex and 12% from heterosexual couples) were analysed in a 13-year retrospective study from a private, HFEA-regulated UK centre between January 2004 and December 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 795 live births resulted in an overall delivery rate of 8.9% per cycle, including 24 (3%) twins. Age-specific crude and expected cumulative LBR calculated in four age groups (<35, 35-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years) were 29, 23, 21, 12% and 66, 49, 54, 28%, respectively. A plateau was reached after six cycles, beyond which there were few additional live births. There was no significant difference in cumulative LBR between single women and same-sex couples. In a multivariate analysis, female age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.93; P < 0.0001), previous live birth following IUI-D (aOR 2.15; 95% CI 1.69-2.73; P < 0.0001) and mild stimulation (aOR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09-1.48; P = 0.02) had a significant effect on outcome, but relationship status or cycle rank did not.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate there is little benefit performing more than six cycles of IUI-D in all women up to 40 years old, including those from same-sex relationships, while only three attempts seem reasonable in those aged 40-42 years. These results do not reflect current clinical guidelines in the UK. The authors found that consecutive IUI cycles, especially with mild stimulation, were an efficient treatment in all indications.

Cost-effectiveness of medically assisted reproduction or expectant management for unexplained subfertility: when to start treatment?

STUDY QUESTION

Over a time period of 3 years, which order of expectant management (EM), IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) and IVF is the most cost-effective for couples with unexplained subfertility with the female age below 38 years?

SUMMARY ANSWER

If a live birth is considered worth €32 000 or less, 2 years of EM followed by IVF was the most cost-effective, whereas above €32 000 this was 1 year of EM, 1 year of IUI-OS and then 1 year of IVF.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

IUI-OS and IVF are commonly used fertility treatments for unexplained subfertility although many couples can conceive naturally, as no identifiable barrier to conception could be found by definition. Few countries have guidelines on when to proceed with medically assisted reproduction (MAR), mostly based on the expected probability of live birth after treatment, but there is a lack of evidence to support the strategies proposed by these guidelines. The increased uptake of IUI-OS and IVF over the past decades and costs related to reimbursement of these treatments are pressing concerns to health service providers. For MAR to remain affordable, sustainable and a responsible use of public funds, guidance is needed on the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for unexplained subfertility, including EM.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We developed a decision analytic Markov model that follows couples with unexplained subfertility of which the woman is under 38 years of age for a time period of 3 years from completion of the fertility workup onwards. We divided the time axis of 3 years into three separate periods, each comprising 1 year. The model was based on contemporary evidence, most notably the dynamic prediction model for natural conception, which was combined with MAR treatment effects from a network meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials. We changed the order of options for managing unexplained subfertility for the 1 year periods to yield five different treatment policies in total: IVF-EM-EM (immediate IVF), EM-IVF-EM (delayed IVF), EM-EM-IVF (postponed IVF), IUIOS-IVF-EM (immediate IUI-OS) and EM-IUIOS-IVF (delayed IUI-OS).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The main outcomes per policy over the 3-year period were the probability of live birth, the average treatment and delivery costs, the probability of multiple pregnancy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and finally, which policy yields the highest net benefit in which costs for a policy were deducted from the health effects, i.e. live births gained. We chose the Dutch societal perspective, but the model can be easily modified for other locations or other perspectives. The probability of live birth after EM was taken from the dynamic prediction model for natural conception and updated for Years 2 and 3. The relative effects of IUI-OS and IVF in terms of odds ratios, taken from the network meta-analysis, were applied to the probability of live birth after EM. We applied standard discounting procedures for economic analyses for Years 2 and 3. The uncertainty around effectiveness, costs and other parameters was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which we drew values from distributions and repeated this procedure 20 000 times. In addition, we changed model assumptions to assess their influence on our results.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

From IVF-EM-EM to EM-IUIOS-IVF, the probability of live birth varied from approximately 54-64% and the average costs from approximately €4000 to €9000. The policies IVF-EM-EM and EM-IVF-EM were dominated by EM-EM-IVF as the latter yielded a higher cumulative probability of live birth at a lower cost. The policy IUIOS-IVF-EM was dominated by EM-IUIOS-IVF as the latter yielded a higher cumulative probability of live birth at a lower cost. After removal of policies that were dominated, the ICER for EM-IUIOS-IVF was approximately €31 000 compared to EM-EM-IVF. The range of ICER values between the lowest 25% and highest 75% of simulation replications was broad. The net benefit curve showed that when we assume a live birth to be worth approximately €20 000 or less, the policy EM-EM-IVF had the highest probability to achieve the highest net benefit. Between €20 000 and €50 000 monetary value per live birth, it was uncertain whether EM-EM-IVF was better than EM-IUIOS-IVF, with the turning point of €32 000. When we assume a monetary value per live birth over €50 000, the policy with the highest probability to achieve the highest net benefit was EM-IUIOS-IVF. Results for subgroups with different baseline prognoses showed the same policies dominated and the same two policies that were the most likely to achieve the highest net benefit but at different threshold values for the assumed monetary value per live birth.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our model focused on population level and was thus based on average costs for the average number of cycles conducted. We also based the model on a number of key assumptions. We changed model assumptions to assess the influence of these assumptions on our results. The change in relative effectiveness of IVF over time was found to be highly influential on results and their interpretation.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

EM-EM-IVF and EM-IUIOS-IVF followed by IVF were the most cost-effective policies. The choice depends on the monetary value assigned to a live birth. The results of our study can be used in discussions between clinicians, couples and policy makers to decide on a sustainable treatment protocol based on the probability of live birth, the costs and the limitations of MAR treatment.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by the ZonMw Doelmatigheidsonderzoek (80-85200-98-91072). The funder had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of this work. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research support from ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

IUI for unexplained infertility-a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

IUI for unexplained infertility can be performed in a natural cycle or in combination with ovarian stimulation. A disadvantage of ovarian stimulation is an increased risk of multiple pregnancies with its inherent maternal and neonatal complication risks. Stimulation agents for ovarian stimulation are clomiphene citrate (CC), Letrozole or gonadotrophins. Although studies have compared two or three of these drugs to each other in IUI, they have never been compared to one another in one analysis.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The objective of this network meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness and safety of IUI with CC, Letrozole or gonadotrophins with each other and with natural cycle IUI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL and the Clinical Trial Registration Database indexed up to 16 August 2018. We included randomized controlled trials that compared a stimulation regimen with CC, Letrozole or gonadotrophins to each other or to natural cycle IUI among couples with unexplained infertility. We performed the network meta-analysis within a multivariate random effects model.

OUTCOMES

We identified 26 studies reporting on 5316 women. The relative risk (RR) for live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates comparing IUI with CC to natural cycle IUI was 1.05 (95% CI 0.63-1.77, low quality of evidence), while comparing IUI with Letrozole to natural cycle IUI was 1.15 (95% CI 0.63-2.08, low quality of evidence) and comparing IUI with gonadotrophins to natural cycle IUI was 1.46 (95% CI 0.92-2.30, low quality of evidence). The RR for live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates comparing gonadotrophins to CC was 1.39 (95% CI 1.09-1.76, moderate quality of evidence), comparing Letrozole to CC was 1.09 (95% CI 0.76-1.57, moderate quality of evidence) and comparing Letrozole to gonadotrophins was 0.79 (95% CI 0.54-1.15, moderate quality of evidence). We did not perform network meta-analysis on multiple pregnancy due to high inconsistency. Pairwise meta-analyses showed an RR for multiple pregnancy rates of 9.11(95% CI 1.18-70.32) comparing IUI with gonadotrophins to natural cycle IUI. There was no data available on multiple pregnancy rates following IUI with CC or Letrozole compared to natural cycle IUI. The RR for multiple pregnancy rates comparing gonadotrophins to CC was 1.42 (95% CI 0.68-2.97), comparing Letrozole to CC was 0.97 (95% CI 0.47-2.01) and comparing Letrozole to gonadotrophins was 0.29 (95% CI 0.14-0.58).In a meta-analysis among studies with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, the RR for live births/ongoing pregnancy rates comparing gonadotrophins to CC was 1.20 (95% CI 0.95-1.51) and the RR for multiple pregnancy rates comparing gonadotropins to CC was 0.80 (95% CI 0.38-1.68).

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Based on low to moderate quality of evidence in this network meta-analysis, IUI with gonadotrophins ranked highest on live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates, but women undergoing this treatment protocol were also at risk for multiple pregnancies with high complication rates. IUI regimens with adherence to strict cancellation criteria led to an acceptable multiple pregnancy rate without compromising the effectiveness. Within a protocol with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, gonadotrophins seem to improve live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to CC. We, therefore, suggest performing IUI with ovarian stimulation using gonadotrophins within a protocol that includes strict cancellation criteria. Obviously, this ignores the impact of costs and patients preference.

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.

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

The UK from 2012 to 2016.

PARTICIPANTS

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

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Gonadotropins versus oral ovarian stimulation agents for unexplained infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare live birth and multiple gestation in patients diagnosed with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination after ovarian stimulation (OS-IUI) with oral medications versus gonadotropins.

DESIGN

Systemic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Patients undergoing OS-IUI for treatment of unexplained infertility.

INTERVENTION(S)

Clomiphene, letrozole, or gonadotropins for OS-IUI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Live birth and multiple gestation.

RESULT(S)

Eight total trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria and comprised 2,989 patients undergoing 6,590 cycles. One study reported a significant increase in both live births and multiple gestations with the use of gonadotropins, two studies found an increased likelihood of live birth with the use of gonadotropins, and two studies found an increased risk of twins with gonadotropins. The relative risk of live birth in subjects receiving gonadotropins was 1.09. The relative risk of multiple gestation in subjects receiving gonadotropins was 1.06. Clinical pregnancy was higher in protocols with lax cancellation policies or higher gonadotropin doses, with subsequent increased relative risks of multiple gestations of 1.20 and 1.15, respectively. Singleton births per subject were similar between the two groups. The results did not change in per-protocol, per cycle, or fixed-effect model sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION(S)

For every birth gained with the use of gonadotropins, a similar increased risk of multiple gestation occurs. The randomized data do not support the use of gonadotropin for OS-IUI in women with unexplained infertility.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Prospero CRD4201911998.

Endometrial thickness as a biomarker for ongoing pregnancy in IUI for unexplained subfertility: a secondary analysis

STUDY QUESTION

What is, in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI, the impact of gonadotrophins compared to clomiphene citrate (CC) on endometrial thickness (EMT) in relation to ongoing pregnancy?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In women with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with ovarian stimulation, gonadotrophins lead to a thicker endometrium compared to CC, but this does not affect ongoing pregnancy rates.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A systematic review and meta-analysis among couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with ovarian stimulation showed that women who conceived had, on average, a thicker endometrium than women who did not conceive, but this evidence is not robust due to a high level of heterogeneity. There was insufficient data to draw any conclusions on EMT and the effect on pregnancy outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

We performed a secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria. In total, 738 couples recruited between July 2013 and March 2016 were allocated to ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins (n = 369) or with CC (n = 369) for a maximum of four IUI cycles. According to local protocol, recombinant FSH, urinary FSH or hMG was used. Natural conceptions and cancelled cycles were removed from this secondary analysis, as they do not provide any information on pregnancy in relation to stimulation after IUI. Ongoing pregnancy was defined as a positive heartbeat at or beyond 12 weeks of gestation.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

We first determined the difference in EMT between women randomized to gonadotrophins (75 IU) and CC (100 mg) over all cycles using a linear mixed model. We then investigated the association between EMT and ongoing pregnancy after IUI using a logistic regression model, adjusted for the allocated drug, number of dominant follicles, female age, BMI, duration of subfertility, primary or secondary subfertility, referral status, smoking status, cycle number and total motile sperm count. To conclude, we investigated the association between EMT and ongoing pregnancy by logistic regression separately in women allocated to gonadotrophins and in women allocated to CC.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 666 couples underwent 1968 IUI cycles. Of these, 330 couples were allocated to gonadotrophins, of which 85 conceived leading to ongoing pregnancy (rate per cycle 8.9%) and 336 couples were allocated to CC, of which 71 conceived leading to ongoing pregnancy (rate per cycle 7.0%) (relative risk (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.61). The mean EMT was 8.9 mm (SD 2.1) in women treated with gonadotrophins and 7.5 mm (SD 2.1) in women treated with CC (adjusted mean difference 1.4 mm; 95% CI: 1.1-1.7). The overall mean EMT was 8.4 mm (SD 2.2) in women that conceived leading to ongoing pregnancy and 8.2 mm (SD 2.2) in women that did not conceive (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.03 per 1 mm increase, 95% CI 0.95-1.12). There was no association between EMT and ongoing pregnancy in women treated with gonadotrophins or CC (OR: 1.01 per 1 mm increase, 95% CI 0.90-1.13, and 1.10 per 1 mm increase, 95% CI 0.99-1.23, respectively).

LIMITATIONS REASON FOR CAUTION

Since this is a secondary analysis, the data should be interpreted prudently as secondary analyses are prone to false-positive findings or could be underpowered to show associations that the study is not primarily set up for.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

In women with unexplained subfertility and treated with IUI, gonadotrophins lead to a significantly thicker endometrium compared to CC, but there was no evidence of a consistent association between EMT in women treated with gonadotrophins or CC and the ongoing pregnancy rate. A relatively thin endometrium after CC is therefore not a valid reason to prefer gonadotrophins as the stimulation agent in IUI for unexplained subfertility.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The initial trial was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) (Health Care Efficiency Research; project number: 80-83600-98-10 192). The EudraCT number for this trial was 2013-001034-18. Prof. Dr B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR 4057.

Gonadotrophins or clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination: a cost-effectiveness analysis

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the cost-effectiveness of gonadotrophins compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation under strict cancellation criteria?

DESIGN

A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Between July 2013 and March 2016, 738 couples were randomized to gonadotrophins (369) or clomiphene citrate (369) in a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands. The direct medical costs of both strategies were compared. Direct medical costs included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, insemination and, if applicable, pregnancy monitoring. Non-parametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in estimates. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between gonadotrophins and clomiphene citrate for ongoing pregnancy and live birth was assessed.

RESULTS

The mean costs per couple were €1534 for gonadotrophins and €1067 for clomiphene citrate (mean difference of €468; 95% confidence interval [CI] €464-472). As ongoing pregnancy rates were 31% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 26% in women allocated to clomiphene citrate (relative risk 1.16, 95% CI 0.93-1.47), the ICER was €21,804 (95% CI €11,628-31,980) per additional ongoing pregnancy with gonadotrophins and €17,044 (95% CI €8998-25,090) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins.

CONCLUSIONS

Gonadotrophins are more expensive compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, without being significantly more effective.

Follicle stimulating hormone or clomiphene citrate in intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation for unexplained subfertility: a role for treatment selection markers?

RESEARCH QUESTION

Can women be identified, on the basis of baseline patient characteristics, as having better chances of an ongoing pregnancy with FSH instead of clomiphene citrate as stimulation agent in intrauterine insemination for unexplained subfertility?

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial; the SUPER study. Between July 2013 and March 2016, couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine inemination (IUI) were allocated to an FSH or clomiphene citrate group. Female age, body mass index, duration of subfertility, primary versus secondary subfertility, antral follicle count and total motile count were assessed. For each of these factors, a logistic regression model was developed to assess if different estimated effects of FSH versus clomiphene citrate on ongoing pregnancy occurred within strata of each factor.

RESULTS

A total of 684 couples received 2259 IUI cycles; 338 couples were allocated to FSH, of which 84 conceived leading to ongoing pregnancy and 346 couples were allocated to clomiphene citrate, of which 71 conceived leading to ongoing pregnancy. None of the treatment selection markers was associated with better ongoing pregnancy chances after IUI with FSH compared with clomiphene citrate.

CONCLUSION

In couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI, no baseline treatment selection markers could be identified to determine whether ovaries should be stimulated with FSH or clomiphene citrate.

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

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