-
Fertility and Sterility Aug 2014To assess procreative outcomes for HIV-positive men and women with seronegative partners. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of intrauterine insemination and assisted reproductive technology in populations serodiscordant for human immunodeficiency virus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To assess procreative outcomes for HIV-positive men and women with seronegative partners.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Twenty-four studies with extractable data for HIV-serodiscordant couples undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilization (IVF).
INTERVENTION(S)
None.
PRIMARY OUTCOMES
HIV transmission to a seronegative partner and per cycle fecundability; secondary outcomes: analysis of multiple gestation rates, miscarriage rates, and cancellation rates.
RESULT(S)
For serodiscordant couples, HIV-positive men or women undergoing IUI and IVF treatment had a 17%, 30%, 14%, and 16% per cycle fecundability, respectively. Multiple gestation rates were 10%, 33%, 14%, and 29%, respectively. Miscarriage rates were 19%, 25%, 13%, and 20%, respectively. No HIV transmission was observed in 8,212 IUI and 1,254 IVF cycles, resulting in 95% confidence that the true rate is 4.5 transmissions per 10,000 IUI cycles or less.
CONCLUSION(S)
In serodiscordant couples, IUI and IVF seem effective and safe based on the literature. Evidence-based practice and social justice suggest that our field should increase access to care for HIV-serodiscordant couples.
Topics: Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active; Female; Fertility; HIV Infections; HIV Long-Term Survivors; HIV Seronegativity; HIV Seropositivity; Health Services Accessibility; Healthcare Disparities; Humans; Insemination, Artificial, Homologous; Male; Patient Safety; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Spouses; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24951364
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.05.001 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Jun 2017The cost of fertility treatment is expensive and interventions that reduce cost can lead to greater efficiency and fewer embryos transferred. Endometrial polyps... (Review)
Review
The cost of fertility treatment is expensive and interventions that reduce cost can lead to greater efficiency and fewer embryos transferred. Endometrial polyps contribute to infertility and are frequently removed prior to infertility treatment. It is unclear whether polypectomy reduces fertility treatment cost and if so, the magnitude of cost reduction afforded by the procedure. The aim of this study was to determine whether performing office or operative hysteroscopic polypectomy prior to infertility treatment would be cost-effective. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were used to identify publications reporting pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic polypectomy. Studies were required to have a polypectomy treatment group and control group of patients with polyps that were not resected. The charges of infertility treatments and polypectomy were obtained through infertility organizations and a private healthcare cost reporting website. These charges were applied to a decision tree model over the range of pregnancy rates observed in the representative studies to calculate an average cost per clinical or ongoing pregnancy. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess cost savings of polypectomy over a range of pregnancy rates and polypectomy costs. Pre-treatment office or operative hysteroscopic polypectomy ultimately saved €6658 ($7480) and €728 ($818), respectively, of the average cost per clinical pregnancy in women treated with four cycles of intrauterine insemination. Polypectomy prior to intrauterine insemination was cost-effective for clinical pregnancy rates greater than 30.2% for office polypectomy and 52.6% for operative polypectomy and for polypectomy price <€4414 ($4959). Office polypectomy or operative polypectomy saved €15,854 ($17,813) and €6644 ($7465), respectively, from the average cost per ongoing pregnancy for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treated women and was cost-effective for ongoing pregnancy rates greater than 26.4% (office polypectomy) and 31.7% (operative polypectomy) and polypectomy price <€6376 ($7164). These findings suggested that office or operative hysteroscopic polypectomy was cost-effective when performed prior to both intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization over a range of plausible pregnancy rates and procedural costs.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Costs and Cost Analysis; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Polyps; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Uterine Diseases
PubMed: 28445799
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.04.025 -
The impact of donor insemination on the risk of preeclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European Journal of Obstetrics,... Nov 2014A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate whether women who conceive with donor sperm have an increased risk of preeclampsia compared with those... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate whether women who conceive with donor sperm have an increased risk of preeclampsia compared with those who use their partner's sperm. Studies that compared women who were impregnated by donor and partner sperm were included. The main outcomes assessed were preeclampsia and gestational hypertension rates. Altogether, 10,898 women (2342 pregnancies by donor sperm versus 8556 by the partner's sperm) were included from seven observational studies. Conception using donor sperm was associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia (odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% CI 1.36-1.95) compared with using a partner's sperm. No difference was observed in the risk of gestational hypertension (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43-2.03). In conclusion, pregnancies achieved by donor sperm significantly increase the risk of preeclampsia, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Additional studies are required to confirm these findings.
Topics: Coitus; Female; Humans; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous; Insemination, Artificial, Homologous; Male; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Risk Factors; Spermatozoa; Tissue Donors
PubMed: 25282539
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.09.022 -
Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are detectable in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register (8 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to 12 October 2014), EMBASE (inception to 12 October 2014), CINAHL (inception to 11 October 2014) and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from January 2013 to October 2014) and we contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised comparisons between operative hysteroscopy versus control in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or undergoing IUI, IVF or ICSI and suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by ultrasonography, saline infusion/gel instillation sonography, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
We retrieved 12 randomised trials possibly addressing the research questions. Only two studies (309 women) met the inclusion criteria. Neither reported the primary outcomes of live birth or procedure related complications. In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the intervention group treated with hysteroscopic myomectomy and the control group having regular fertility-oriented intercourse during 12 months for the outcome of clinical pregnancy. A large clinical benefit with hysteroscopic myomectomy cannot be excluded: if 21% of women with fibroids achieve a clinical pregnancy having timed intercourse only, the evidence suggests that 39% of women (95% CI 21% to 58%) will achieve a successful outcome following the hysteroscopic removal of the fibroids (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17, P = 0.06, 94 women, very low quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference between the comparison groups for the outcome of miscarriage (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.85, P = 0.50, 30 clinical pregnancies in 94 women, very low quality evidence). The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI can increase the chance of a clinical pregnancy compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy: if 28% of women achieve a clinical pregnancy with a simple diagnostic hysteroscopy, the evidence suggests that 63% of women (95% CI 50% to 76%) will achieve a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96, P < 0.00001, 204 women, moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A large benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the chance of clinical pregnancy in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility cannot be excluded. The hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. More randomised studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic removal of suspected endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.
Topics: Coitus; Endometrium; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Leiomyoma; Polyps; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tissue Adhesions; Uterine Diseases; Uterus
PubMed: 25701429
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub3 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to update the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of progesterone luteal phase support (LPS) following... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to update the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of progesterone luteal phase support (LPS) following ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination treatment (OS-IUI) for unexplained or mild male infertility. Four additional studies were identified compared to the previous review in 2017. Twelve RCTs (2631 patients, 3262 cycles) met full inclusion criteria. Results from quantitative synthesis suggest that progesterone LPS after OS-IUI leads to higher live birth (RR 1.38, 95%CI [1.09, 1.74]; 7 RCTs, n=1748) and clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.38, 95% CI [1.21, 1.59]; 11 RCTs, n=2163) than no LPS or placebo. This effect is specifically present in protocols using gonadotropins for OS-IUI (RR 1.41, 95%CI [1.17, 1.71]; 7 RCTs, n=1114), and unclear in protocols involving clomiphene citrate (RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.05, 18.94]; 2 RCTs, n=138). We found no effect of progesterone LPS on multiple pregnancy or miscarriage rates. No correlation between drug-dosage or duration of treatment and effect size was seen. Though our results suggest both benefit and safety of progesterone LPS in OS-IUI, evidence is of low to moderate quality and additional well-powered trials are still mandatory to confirm our findings and justify implementation in daily practice.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=292325, identifier CRD42021292325.
Topics: Clomiphene; Female; Gonadotropins; Humans; Insemination, Artificial; Luteal Phase; Male; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Progesterone
PubMed: 36120470
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.960393 -
Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine Mar 2015Antibiotic therapies used in treatment of many diseases have adverse effects on fertility. This review analyzes previous comparative studies that surveyed the effects of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Antibiotic therapies used in treatment of many diseases have adverse effects on fertility. This review analyzes previous comparative studies that surveyed the effects of two common groups of antibiotics on male fertility.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate histo-pathological effects of fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides on sperm parameters and male reproductive tissue.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Articles about the effects of aminoglycosides and fluoroquinolones on male infertility, sperm parameters, male reproductive tissue, and spermatogenesis in English and Persian languages published on Google Scholar and PubMed databases from January 2000 to December 2013 were assessed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of aminoglycosides or fluoroquinolones on sperm parameters, artificial insemination, and male reproductive tract or RCTs comparing aminoglycosides vs. fluoroquinolones were eligible for inclusion. For ascertaining the reliability of study, data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two investigators.
RESULTS
Sperm viability was decreased significantly with streptomycin, gentamicin, and neomycin (p<0.001). Sperm motility was decreased significantly with gentamicin and neomycin (p<0.05). Total sperm count was significantly decreased with ofloxacin, gentamicin, streptomycin, and neomycin (p<0.022). There was significant decrease in post-thawing motility with low dose and high dose of ciprofloxacin. Testis weight was decreased with gentamicin and ofloxacin significantly (p<0.011). There was significant decrease in seminal vesicle weight with gentamicin, neomycin, and ofloxacin (p<0.022). Furthermore, changes in epididymis weight, percentage of total apoptotic cells, and diameter of seminiferous tubule were significant with all drugs including streptomycin, gentamicin, neomycin, and ofloxacin (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION
Streptomycin has less negative effects on cell's apoptosis and sperm parameters as compared to other drugs. Gentamicin has more detrimental effects so lesser dosage and duration is recommended. Fluoroquinolones showed negative effects on testis tissue and sperm parameters. Ciprofloxacin has less adverse effects than gentamicin in artificial insemination.
PubMed: 26000002
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is a widely used fertility treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Although IUI is less invasive and less expensive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is a widely used fertility treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Although IUI is less invasive and less expensive thAppendixan in vitro fertilisation (IVF), the safety of IUI in combination with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is debated. The main concern about IUI treatment with OH is the increase in multiple pregnancy rate. This is an update of a Cochrane review (Veltman-Verhulst 2012) originally published in 2006 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether, for couples with unexplained subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rate compared with timed intercourse (TI), or expectant management, both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (formerly Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group) Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, inception to Issue 11, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers, all from inception to December 2015 and reference lists of articles. Authors of identified studies were contacted for missing or unpublished data. The evidence is current to December 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Truly randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparisons of IUI versus TI, in natural or stimulated cycles. Only couples with unexplained subfertility were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. We extracted outcomes, and pooled data and, where possible, we carried out subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 trials including 1867 women. IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference in cumulative live births between the two groups (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.78; 1 RCT; n = 334; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI was assumed to be 16%, that of IUI would be between 15% and 34%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.53; 1 RCT; n = 334; moderate quality evidence). IUI versus TI or expectant management both in stimulated cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference between the two treatment groups (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.88; 2 RCTs; n = 208; I(2) = 72%; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of achieving a live birth in TI was assumed to be 26%, the chance of a live birth with IUI would be between 23% and 50%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates between the two treatment groups (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.87; 4 RCTs, n = 316; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence). IUI in a natural cycle versus IUI in a stimulated cycle Live birth rate (all cycles)An increase in live birth rate was found for women who were treated with IUI in a stimulated cycle compared with those who underwent IUI in natural cycle (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, n = 396; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in IUI in a stimulated cycle was assumed to be 25%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a natural cycle would be between 9% and 21%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.70; 2 RCTs; n = 65; low quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus TI or expectant management in a natural cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.49; 1 RCT; n = 253; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI or expectant management in a natural cycle was assumed to be 24%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 12% and 32%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.34; 2 RCTs; n = 304; moderate quality evidence). IUI in natural cycle versus TI or expectant management in stimulated cycle Live birth rate (all cycles)There was evidence of an increase in live births for IUI (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.44; 1 RCT, n = 342; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI in a stimulated cycle was assumed to be 13%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a natural cycle would be between 14% and 34%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the groups (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.90; 1 RCT; n = 342; moderate quality evidence).The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. Quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitation being imprecision in the findings for both live birth and multiple pregnancy..
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review did not find conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth or multiple pregnancy in most of the comparisons for couples with unexplained subfertility treated with intra-uterine insemination (IUI) when compared with timed intercourse (TI), both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH). There were insufficient studies to allow for pooling of data on the important outcome measures for each of the comparisons.
Topics: Coitus; Female; Fertile Period; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Male; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 26892070
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014In many countries intrauterine insemination (IUI) is the treatment of first choice for a subfertile couple when the infertility work up reveals an ovulatory cycle, at... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In many countries intrauterine insemination (IUI) is the treatment of first choice for a subfertile couple when the infertility work up reveals an ovulatory cycle, at least one open Fallopian tube and sufficient spermatozoa. The final goal of this treatment is to achieve a pregnancy and deliver a healthy (singleton) live birth. The probability of conceiving with IUI depends on various factors including age of the couple, type of subfertility, ovarian stimulation and the timing of insemination. IUI should logically be performed around the moment of ovulation. Since spermatozoa and oocytes have only limited survival time correct timing of the insemination is essential. As it is not known which technique of timing for IUI results in the best treatment outcome, we compared different techniques for timing IUI and different time intervals.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of different synchronisation methods in natural and stimulated cycles for IUI in subfertile couples.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials of the timing of IUI. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (1974 to October 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2014) and PsycINFO (inception to October 2014) electronic databases and prospective trial registers. Furthermore, we checked the reference lists of all obtained studies and performed a handsearch of conference abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different timing methods for IUI were included. The following interventions were evaluated: detection of luteinising hormone (LH) in urine or blood, single test; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration; combination of LH detection and hCG administration; basal body temperature chart; ultrasound detection of ovulation; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration; or other timing methods.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the trials, extracted the data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Eighteen RCTs were included in the review, of which 14 were included in the meta-analyses (in total 2279 couples). The evidence was current to October 2013. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for most comparisons . The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and attrition bias.Ten RCTs compared different methods of timing for IUI. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between hCG injection versus LH surge (odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 18, 1 RCT, 24 women, very low quality evidence), urinary hCG versus recombinant hCG (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.03, 1 RCT, 284 women, low quality evidence) or hCG versus GnRH agonist (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.6, 3 RCTS, 104 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).Two RCTs compared the optimum time interval from hCG injection to IUI, comparing different time frames that ranged from 24 hours to 48 hours. Only one of these studies reported live birth rates, and found no difference between the groups (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.00, 1 RCT, 204 couples). One study compared early versus late hCG administration and one study compared different dosages of hCG, but neither reported the primary outcome of live birth.We found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)). However, most of these data were very low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in safety and effectiveness between different methods of synchronization of ovulation and insemination. More research is needed.
Topics: Adult; Body Temperature; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Luteinizing Hormone; Male; Ovulation Detection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 25528596
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006942.pub3 -
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and... Jul 2022The objective of this review is to define live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) for women ≥ 40 undergoing ovulation induction (OI)/intrauterine... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The objective of this review is to define live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) for women ≥ 40 undergoing ovulation induction (OI)/intrauterine insemination (IUI).
METHODS
A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using PubMed and Google Scholar. The primary and secondary outcomes of interest were LBR and CPR, respectively.
RESULTS
There were 636 studies screened of which 42 were included. In 8 studies which provided LBR for partner sperm, LBR/cycle ranged from 0 to 8.5% with majority being ≤ 4%. Cumulative LBR was 3.6 to 7.1% over 6 cycles with the majority of pregnancies in the first 4. In the four studies providing LBR for donor sperm cycles, LBR/cycle ranged from 3 to 7% with cumulative LBR of 12 to 24% over 6 cycles. The majority of pregnancies occurred in the first 6 cycles. There were three studies with LBR or CPR/cycle ≥ 1% for women ≥ 43. No studies provided data above this range for women ≥ 45. In 4 studies which compared OI/IUI and IVF, the LBR from IVF was 9.2 to 22% per cycle. In 7 studies which compared outcomes by stimulation protocol, no significant differences were seen.
CONCLUSION
For women ≥ 40 using homologous sperm, the highest probability of live birth is via IVF. However, if IVF is not an option, OI/IUI may be considered for up to 4 cycles in those using partner sperm or 6 cycles with donor sperm. For women > 45, OI/IUI is likely futile but a limited trial may be considered for psychological benefit while encouraging consideration of donor oocyte IVF or adoption. Use of gonadotropins does not appear to be more effective than oral agents in this age group.
Topics: Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Insemination; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Retrospective Studies; Semen
PubMed: 35731321
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02551-8 -
Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and... Dec 2017The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate a possible association between immobilization and pregnancy rate in patients undergoing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate a possible association between immobilization and pregnancy rate in patients undergoing intrauterine insemination.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
To ensure the quality of the methodology, the PRISMA criteria were met at all stages of the development of this meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed MEDLINE, ScienceDirect and reference lists of eligible studies from inception to March 2017, without any restriction. We also interviewed the ClinicalTrials.gov database for unpublished articles. Finally, we sought potentially eligible studies in meeting abstracts. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and outcome data. Estimates were pooled using random effects models and sensitivity analyses. We selected studies that compared bed rest to immediate mobilization after intrauterine insemination. The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy rate per couple.
RESULTS
Of 176 identified abstracts, four primary studies, all of them randomized controlled trials, met the inclusion criteria, including 1361 couples. The overall relative risk of ongoing pregnancy rate in bed rest versus immediate immobilization was 1.67 95% CI [0.86; 3.22]. The overall relative risk of the live birth rate was 1.11 95% CI [0.56; 2.20].
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis was not able to demonstrate that bed rest after intrauterine insemination effectively increases in pregnancy rate. For everyday practice, no specific strategy, bed rest or immediate mobilization, can be recommended at this time.
Topics: Bed Rest; Female; Humans; Immobilization; Insemination, Artificial; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate
PubMed: 28964965
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.09.005