-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Intra-uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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all references in the identified trials and background papers and contacted authors to identify relevant published and unpublished data.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.
Topics: Birth Rate; Coitus; Female; Fertilization; Humans; Infertility, Male; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26915339
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000360.pub5 -
The Journal of Urology Mar 2018Men with abnormal sperm morphology are often counseled that natural conception and intrauterine insemination are ineffective, and in vitro fertilization is the only... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Men with abnormal sperm morphology are often counseled that natural conception and intrauterine insemination are ineffective, and in vitro fertilization is the only option. Our objective was to determine the effect of sperm morphology on the pregnancy success of intrauterine insemination.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We systematically searched for studies published prior to January 2017 that 1) reported ultrasound verified clinical pregnancies per intrauterine insemination cycle, 2) assessed sperm morphology using the Kruger strict criteria and 3) described morphology at the greater than 4% and 4% or less and/or the 1% or greater and less than 1% thresholds. In all studies mean female age was between 25 and 40 years and mean total motile sperm count was greater than 10 million. Estimates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Data were extracted from 20 observational studies involving a total of 41,018 cycles. When comparing men at the greater than 4% and 4% or less thresholds, the rate of ultrasound verified pregnancy per intrauterine insemination cycle was not statistically or clinically different (14.2% vs 12.1%, p = 0.06) and the risk difference was 3.0% (95% CI 1.4-4.6), indicating 3.0 additional pregnancies per 100 intrauterine insemination cycles. When comparing men at the 1% or greater and the less than 1% thresholds, there were no statistical or clinical differences in the rate of ultrasound verified pregnancy per cycle of intrauterine insemination (14.0% vs 13.9%, p = 0.97) or in the risk difference (1.6%, 95% CI -4.5-7.6).
CONCLUSIONS
There appears to be no clinical difference in intrauterine insemination pregnancy success among men with normal and abnormal sperm morphology when accounting for total motile sperm count and female age. Abnormal sperm morphology alone should not exclude couples from attempting intrauterine insemination.
Topics: Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Infertility, Male; Insemination; Male; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Sperm Count; Sperm Motility
PubMed: 29129781
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.045 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018The first-line treatment in donor sperm treatment consists of inseminations that can be done by intrauterine insemination (IUI) or by intracervical insemination (ICI). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
The first-line treatment in donor sperm treatment consists of inseminations that can be done by intrauterine insemination (IUI) or by intracervical insemination (ICI).
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine insemination (IUI) and intracervical insemination (ICI) in women who start donor sperm treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL in October 2016, checked references of relevant studies, and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, the Grey literature, and five trials registers on 15 December 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on IUI versus ICI in natural cycles or with ovarian stimulation, and RCTs comparing different cointerventions in IUI and ICI. We included cross-over studies if pre-cross-over data were available.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We collected data on primary outcomes of live birth and multiple pregnancy rates, and on secondary outcomes of clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and cancellation rates.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs (708 women analysed) on ICI and IUI in donor sperm treatment. Two studies compared IUI and ICI in natural cycles, two studies compared IUI and ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles, and two studies compared timing of IUI and ICI. There was very low-quality evidence; the main limitations were risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.IUI versus ICI in natural cyclesThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in live birth rate between IUI and ICI in natural cycles (odds ratio (OR) 3.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 87.13; 1 RCT, 26 women; very low-quality evidence). There was only one live birth in this study (in the IUI group). IUI resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR 6.18, 95% CI 1.91 to 20.03; 2 RCTs, 76 women; I² = 48%; very low-quality evidence).No multiple pregnancies or miscarriages occurred in this study.IUI versus ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cyclesThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in live birth rate between IUI and ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles (OR 2.55, 95% CI 0.72 to 8.96; 1 RCT, 43 women; very low-quality evidence). This suggested that if the chance of a live birth following ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles was assumed to be 30%, the chance following IUI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles would be between 24% and 80%. IUI may result in higher clinical pregnancy rates than ICI (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.78; 2 RCTs, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). IUI may be associated with higher multiple pregnancy rates than ICI (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.00 to 7.69; 2 RCTs, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). This suggested that if the risk of multiple pregnancy following ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles was assumed to be 10%, the risk following IUI would be between 10% and 46%.We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference between the groups in miscarriage rates in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.04; 2 RCTs, overall 67 pregnancies; I² = 50%; very low-quality evidence).Timing of IUI and ICIWe found no studies that reported on live birth rates.We found a higher clinical pregnancy rate when IUI was timed one day after a rise in blood levels of luteinising hormone (LH) compared to IUI two days after a rise in blood levels of LH (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.53; 1 RCT, 351 women; low-quality evidence). We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in clinical pregnancy rates between ICI timed after a rise in urinary levels of LH versus a rise in basal temperature plus cervical mucus scores (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.11; 1 RCT, 56 women; very low-quality evidence).Neither of these studies reported multiple pregnancy or miscarriage rates as outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a clear difference in live birth rates between IUI and ICI in natural or gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles in women who started with donor sperm treatment. There was insufficient evidence available for the effect of timing of IUI or ICI on live birth rates. Very low-quality data suggested that in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles, ICI may be associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate than IUI, but also with a higher risk of multiple pregnancy rate. We concluded that the current evidence was too limited to choose between IUI or ICI, in natural cycles or with ovarian stimulation, in donor sperm treatment.
Topics: Body Temperature; Cervix Mucus; Female; Gonadotropins; Humans; Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous; Live Birth; Luteinizing Hormone; Menstrual Cycle; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29368795
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000317.pub4 -
Reproductive Sciences (Thousand Oaks,... May 2023The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of endometrial scratch on the pregnancy rate among women with previous failed intrauterine insemination (IUI). A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The Effect of Endometrial Scratch on Pregnancy Rate in Women with Previous Intrauterine Insemination Failure: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of endometrial scratch on the pregnancy rate among women with previous failed intrauterine insemination (IUI). A systematic search was done in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ISI web of science from inception to November 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared endometrial scratch in the intervention group versus placebo or no intervention in the control group among infertile women with previous failure of IUI regarding different pregnancy outcomes. Revman software was utilized for performing our meta-analysis. Our main outcomes were biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates. Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 989 patients. We found endometrial scratch significantly improved the biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates in comparison with the control group among women with previous IUI failure (p < 0.001). Moreover, the live birth rate was significantly increased among the endometrial scratch group (RR = 2.00, 95% CI [1.20, 3.34], p = 0.008). In conclusion, endometrial scratch is effective in improving pregnancy outcomes among women with previous IUI failure. More trials are required to confirm our findings.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Fertilization in Vitro; Endometrium; Live Birth; Insemination; Insemination, Artificial; Ovulation Induction
PubMed: 36121616
DOI: 10.1007/s43032-022-01081-z -
American Journal of Reproductive... May 2024Seminal plasma hypersensitivity (SPH) is a rare and often misdiagnosed condition characterized by local and/or systemic reactions to seminal plasma proteins following... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Seminal plasma hypersensitivity (SPH) is a rare and often misdiagnosed condition characterized by local and/or systemic reactions to seminal plasma proteins following exposure to semen. We aimed to summarize key symptomatology, diagnostic features, and management options for SPH.
METHODS
The databases PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Review were searched with key words "seminal plasma hypersensitivity" and "seminal fluid allergy" through September 2023. Exclusion criteria included non-English articles, in vitro studies, publication before 1990, duplicates, and articles with no clinical relevance to SPH in women.
RESULTS
The search yielded 53 articles for review. Of these, 60.5% described systemic SPH and 39.5% described localized.
CONCLUSION
Diagnosis of SPH relies on a thorough patient history and confirmatory skin prick testing. The use of IgE assays is controversial and less accurate for cases of localized SPH. Knowledge of disease immunopathology, systemic versus localized symptom presentation, patient preference, and desire to conceive should guide management options. Artificial insemination has the potential for severe adverse reactions in systemic SPH so necessitates extra procedural precautions. SPH does not appear to impair fertility. Additional research on specific allergens implicated in SPH can aid in the development of more targeted immunotherapy approaches with improved safety and efficacy.
Topics: Humans; Male; Allergens; Hypersensitivity; Immunoglobulin E; Insemination, Artificial; Semen; Seminal Plasma Proteins; Skin Tests; Female
PubMed: 38775338
DOI: 10.1111/aji.13865 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015One-third of subfertile couples have no identifiable cause for their inability to conceive. In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a widely accepted treatment for this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
One-third of subfertile couples have no identifiable cause for their inability to conceive. In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a widely accepted treatment for this condition; however, this treatment is invasive and expensive and is associated with risks.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF compared with expectant management, unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI) or intrauterine insemination along with ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (IUI + gonadotropins) or clomiphene (IUI + CC) or letrozole (IUI + letrozole) in improving pregnancy outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, first quarter), MEDLINE (1946 to May 2015), EMBASE (1985 to May 2015), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (May 2015) and reference lists of articles. We searched the following trial registries: clinicaltrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform search portal (http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx). We searched the Web of Science (http://wokinfo.com/) as another source of trials and conference abstracts, OpenGrey (http://www.opengrey.eu/) for unpublished literature from Europe and the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) database (http://regional.bvsalud.org/php/index.php?lang=en). Moreover, we handsearched relevant conference proceedings and contacted study authors to ask about additional publications.Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary review outcome was cumulative live birth rate. Multiple pregnancy and other adverse effects were secondary outcomes. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the effectiveness of IVF in couples with unexplained subfertility was compared with that of other treatments, including expectant management, unstimulated IUI and stimulated IUI using gonadotropins or clomiphene or letrozole.Live birth rate (LBR) per woman was the primary outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and quality of trials and evaluated the quality of the evidence by using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
IVF versus expectant management (two RCTs):Live birth rate per woman was higher with IVF than with expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 22.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37, one RCT, 51 women, very low quality evidence). Multiple pregnancy rates (MPRs), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and miscarriage were not reported. IVF versus unstimulated IUI (two RCTs):Live birth rate was higher with IVF than with unstimulated IUI (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.12, two RCTs, 156 women, I(2) = 60%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in multiple pregnancy rates (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.04 to 27.29, one RCT, 43 women, very low quality evidence) IVF versus IUI + ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (three RCTs) or clomiphene (one RCT) or letrozole (no RCTs):Data from these trials could not be pooled because of high statistical heterogeneity (I(2) = 93.3%). Heterogeneity was eliminated when studies were stratified by pretreatment status.In trials comparing IVF versus IUI + gonadotropins among treatment-naive women, there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the groups in live birth rates (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.73, four RCTs, 745 women, I(2) = 8.0%, moderate-quality evidence). In women pretreated with IUI + clomiphene, a higher live birth rate was reported among those who underwent IVF than those given IUI + gonadotropins (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.32 to 6.57, one RCT, 280 women, moderate-quality evidence).There was no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF and IUI + CC in treatment-naive women (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.55, one RCT, 103 women, low quality evidence).In treatment-naive women, there was no evidence of a difference in rates of multiple pregnancy between women who underwent IVF and those who received IUI + gonadotropins (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39, four RCTs, 745 women, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in MPRs between women who underwent IVF compared with those given IUI + CC (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.31, one RCT, 103 women, low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference in ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate between treatment-naive women who underwent IVF and those given IUI + gonadotropins (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.14, two RCTs, 221 women, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in OHSS rates between groups receiving IVF versus those receiving IUI + CC (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.31, one RCT, 103 women, low-quality evidence).In treatment naive women, there was no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02, one RCT, 103 women, low-quality evidence), nor between women treated with IVF versus those receiving IUI+ gonadotropins (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02, one RCT, 103 women).No studies compared IVF with IUI + letrozole.The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitation was serious imprecision resulting from small study numbers and low event rates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
IVF may be associated with higher live birth rates than expectant management, but there is insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions. IVF may also be associated with higher live birth rates than unstimulated IUI. In women pretreated with clomiphene + IUI, IVF appears to be associated with higher birth rates than IUI + gonadotropins. However in women who are treatment-naive there is no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins or between IVF and IUI + clomiphene. Adverse events associated with these interventions could not be adequately assessed owing to lack of evidence.
Topics: Clomiphene; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer; Humans; Infertility, Female; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Ovulation Induction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 26583517
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003357.pub4 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Apr 2022IUI + COH is widely used in cases of unexplained infertility before resorting to IVF. Debate continues about what should be the first-line treatment for couples with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
IUI + COH is widely used in cases of unexplained infertility before resorting to IVF. Debate continues about what should be the first-line treatment for couples with unexplained infertility.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review assessed the relative efficacy of IUI + COH compared with IVF in couples with unexplained infertility.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched Medline, Embase, CIHNL, Pscy Info, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to November 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Only RCTs published articles in full text with female patients aged 18-43 years and diagnosed with unexplained infertility were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors reviewed citations from primary search independently and any disagreement was resolved by mutual discussion and consultation with a third author.
MAIN RESULT
In total, eight RCTs were included. The quality of evidence was moderate to low due to inconsistency across the trials and imprecision. The pooled result showed that IVF was associated with a statistically significant higher live birth rate (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01-2.32, P < 0.00001 I = 86%) with no significant difference in multiple pregnancy rate or OHSS rate. Sensitivity analysis based on women's age and a history of previous IUI or IVF treatment showed no significant difference in the live birth rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.15, I = 0%, 3 RCTs) in treatment-naïve women younger than 38 years. In women over 38 years, the live birth rates were significantly higher in the IVF group (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.16-4.0, I = 42%, 1 RCT).
CONCLUSION
Further research using a standardised treatment protocol and taking into account important prognostic variables and cumulative live birth rates from fresh IVF and all sibling frozen embryos is required to further guide clinical practice.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Young Adult
PubMed: 34636983
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06277-3 -
Fertility and Sterility Mar 2016To evaluate the effectiveness of semen washing in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-discordant couples in which the male partner is infected. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness of semen washing to prevent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission and assist pregnancy in HIV-discordant couples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of semen washing in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-discordant couples in which the male partner is infected.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Forty single-arm open-label studies among HIV-discordant couples that underwent intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilization (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using washed semen.
INTERVENTION(S)
Semen washing followed by IUI, IVF, or IVF/ICSI.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
HIV transmission to HIV-uninfected women; secondary outcomes: HIV transmission to newborns and proportion of couples achieving a clinical pregnancy.
RESULT(S)
No HIV transmission occurred in 11,585 cycles of assisted reproduction with the use of washed semen among 3,994 women. Among the subset of HIV-infected men without plasma viral suppression at the time of semen washing, no HIV seroconversions occurred among 1,023 women after 2,863 cycles of assisted reproduction with the use of washed semen. Studies that measured HIV transmission to infants reported no cases of vertical transmission. Overall, 56.3% of couples (2,357/4,184) achieved a clinical pregnancy with the use of washed semen.
CONCLUSION(S)
Semen washing appears to significantly reduce the risk of transmission in HIV-discordant couples desiring children, regardless of viral suppression in the male partner. There are no randomized controlled studies or studies from low-income countries, especially those with a large burden of HIV. Continued development of lower-cost semen washing and assisted reproduction technologies is needed. Integration of semen washing into HIV prevention interventions could help to further reduce the spread of HIV.
Topics: Adult; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; HIV; HIV Infections; HIV Seronegativity; HIV Seropositivity; Humans; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Middle Aged; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Risk Factors; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Sperm Retrieval; Spermatozoa; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26688556
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.028 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Aug 2021There is a great controversy regarding the benefits of ultrasound-guided intrauterine insemination (IUI) in improving pregnancy rates. Thus, we aimed to compare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
There is a great controversy regarding the benefits of ultrasound-guided intrauterine insemination (IUI) in improving pregnancy rates. Thus, we aimed to compare ultrasound-guided IUI versus classical IUI regarding the pregnancy rates improvement.
METHODS
A systematic search was done in Cochrane Library, PubMed, ISI web of science, and Scopus during June 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared ultrasound-guided IUI versus classical IUI in different pregnancy outcomes. We extracted the available data from included studies and pooled them in a meta-analysis model using RevMan software. Our primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate. Our secondary outcomes were miscarriage, live birth rates, and incidence of difficulty reported during the procedure. The overall quality of evidence was assessed through GRADEpro GDT software.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 1338 patients. We found that ultrasound-guided IUI significantly improved the clinical pregnancy rate when compared to the classical group (RR = 1.33, 95% CI [1.05, 1.68], p = 0.02). However, there were no significant differences between both groups in terms of miscarriage and live birth rates. Ultrasound-guided IUI significantly reduced the incidence of difficulty reported during the procedure (RR = 0.42, 95% CI [0.21, 0.84], p = 0.01). The GRADEpro GDT tool showed high quality of evidence for the evaluated outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence of high quality that ultrasound-guided IUI improves the pregnancy rate and reduces the incidence of difficulty reported during the procedure.
Topics: Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Insemination; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34242930
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.06.039 -
Journal of Dairy Science Oct 2017The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to identify and assess evidence and knowledge gaps in published observational studies that have... (Review)
Review
The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to identify and assess evidence and knowledge gaps in published observational studies that have investigated the relationship between mastitis and pregnancy loss (PL) in dairy cows. PubMed and ScienceDirect were used to search pertinent peer-reviewed research reports of interest. Screening of research reports was conducted at 3 levels: titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. The search identified 651 records for initial screening. The final screening process identified 8 qualified articles for review after removing 10 duplicate records, 582 titles, 31 abstracts, and 20 full-text articles. Two studies produced strong epidemiologic evidence indicating that (1) exposure to clinical mastitis during early gestation (first 45 d of gestation) is associated with subsequent PL during the following 90 d; and (2) subclinical mastitis 1 to 30 d before artificial insemination (AI) is associated with subsequent PL at 35 to 41 d of gestation. An additional study showed that exposure to clinical mastitis during early lactation in combination with low body condition can increase the risk of PL in dairy cows; however, the interaction effect between clinical mastitis and low body condition on PL was considered weak. Four other studies produced inconclusive evidence indicating that mastitis is a predisposing factor for PL in dairy cows, as the exposure risk period for mastitis overlapped with the follow-up period for diagnosis of PL in dairy cows. Finally, one study failed to identify a relationship between mastitis and PL in dairy cows. Further research is needed to (1) support the hypothesis that mastitis in combination with low body condition score (or other exposure factors) can increase the risk of PL, (2) compare the effect of clinical versus subclinical mastitis on PL, (3) compare the effect of mastitis before breeding and during gestation on PL, and (4) compare the effect of mastitis on PL in dairy cows during different lactations.
Topics: Abortion, Veterinary; Animals; Cattle; Female; Insemination, Artificial; Lactation; Mastitis, Bovine; Observational Studies as Topic; Pregnancy
PubMed: 28780088
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2017-12711