Intrauterine insemination of washed spermatozoa for treatment of oligozoospermia

Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Assisted reproductive technologies for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Intra-uterine insemination for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Intra-uterine insemination for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Systematic review of the treatment of ovulatory infertility with clomiphene citrate and intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) with clomiphene citrate (CC) combined with intrauterine insemination (IUI) is often used as treatment for ovulatory infertility which includes unexplained, male, cervical, endometriosis, and tubal infertility.

AIMS

To review the effectiveness of CC and IUI in ovulatory infertility.

METHODS

Systematic review of pertinent randomised controlled trials (RCT) using the bibliographic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE. References of selected articles identified were hand-searched for additional relevant citations.

RESULTS

Six published RCT were included in the overall review. Meta-analysis demonstrated a higher cycle pregnancy rate (CPR) with CC and IUI compared to timed intercourse in the natural cycle (P < 0.001 and odds ratio = 4.6, 95% CI = 1.9-11.3). Treatment with gonadotrophins and IUI results in a higher CPR compared to CC and IUI (P = 0.005 and odds ratio = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.3-6.2). Further RCT are required comparing CC and IUI with IUI or CC alone before one can make firm conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Clomiphene citrate combined with IUI is more effective than timed intercourse in the natural cycle at achieving pregnancy in couples with ovulatory infertility. However, treatment with gonadotrophins and IUI is superior to CC and IUI.

Case series of a single centre's treatment of ovulatory infertility with clomiphene citrate and intrauterine insemination in 2002

The present paper reports a single department's retrospective case series of all clomiphene citrate (CC) combined with intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment cycles for ovulatory infertility performed during 2002. Thirty-eight couples with unexplained, endometriosis, male or unilateral tubal factor infertility had undergone 71 cycles of CC and IUI. The clinical and ongoing cycle pregnancy rates were 20 and 17%, respectively. Seven percent of the clinical pregnancies were multiple pregnancies, with all multiple pregnancies being twin gestations. The current use of CC and IUI is an effective early treatment option in couples with ovulatory infertility presenting to our department.

Intrauterine insemination: is it an effective treatment for male factor infertility?

Results were collected from 11 studies comparing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with intracervical insemination (ICI) of frozen donor semen, 10 studies comparing IUI with timed natural intercourse (NI) or ICI in couples with semen defects and seven studies comparing ICI with NI or ICI in couples with unexplained infertility. IUI significantly increased the pregnancy rate relative to favourably timed ICI in donor insemination (DI) with frozen semen both with and without gonadotrophin stimulation of the female partner (odds ratios (95% confidence interval) 1.92 (1.02-3.61) and 2.63 (1.52-4.54) respectively). The benefit of IUI tended to be less when the pregnancy rate for ICI was high and IUI had no benefit with fresh donor semen. Overall IUI was of significant benefit in the male factor couples compared with NI-ICI (odds ratio 2.20 (1.43-3.39) and the advantage appeared to be maintained when comparison was confined to properly timed ICI although the odds ratios were not significantly greater than 1. IUI had no benefit relative to favourably timed NI-ICI for couples with unexplained infertility; an apparent advantage overall was produced by studies where NI was late. None of the studies on male factor used a sperm function test to define male subfertility and three only included couples with good mucus penetration by sperm. The range of semen defects defined was such that many couples would have had a good chance of conceiving naturally given a normal female partner but nevertheless the overall pregnancy rate (4.8%) was considerably less than in the unexplained group (11.6%), suggesting that some sperm dysfunction was present. We conclude that the available evidence suggests that IUI is valuable for DI with cryopreserved semen and for couples with mild to moderately impaired semen quality and postulate that it overcomes failure to fertilize due to impaired mucus penetration and poor survival in the female reproductive tract.