-
Revista de Salud Publica (Bogota,... 2014To determine the factors associated with the presence of cytoplasmic droplets in boars. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the factors associated with the presence of cytoplasmic droplets in boars.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out in which 133 articles were found, 70 were eliminated due to duplication, and 65 were finally selected: 57 in Cab Abstract, 39 in Pub Med, 20 in Agricola, and 17 in Science Direct. Forty-seven articles were found with an available full text. Data was tabulated in EpiData Entry and transferred to the Stata version 12.0 program.
RESULTS
Factors Associated with cytoplasmic droplets are: Climatic and environmental variables; ejaculation frequency with intervals of less than three weeks; spermatic morphologic alterations in tail (coiled and distal reflex); DNA fragmentation; and enzymatic factors related to seminal biochemistry. Work carried out in equatorial climate regions or that focused on the analysis of the implications of CDs in artificial insemination centers was not found.
CONCLUSIONS
The information is characterized by a wide heterogeneity and diversity studies. A contribution was made to Veterinary Public Health in Colombia on the importance of CGs as factors that limit reproductive processes in swine. It was not possible to determine the temporal relationship between the cause and effect of CDs.
Topics: Animals; Climate; DNA Fragmentation; Ejaculation; Inclusion Bodies; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Semen Analysis; Spermatozoa; Sus scrofa
PubMed: 26120862
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2024South Africa is home to numerous indigenous and locally developed sheep (Nguni Pedi, Zulu, and Namaqua Afrikaner, Afrino, Africander, Bezuidenhout Africander, Damara,...
South Africa is home to numerous indigenous and locally developed sheep (Nguni Pedi, Zulu, and Namaqua Afrikaner, Afrino, Africander, Bezuidenhout Africander, Damara, Dorper, Döhne Merino, Meat Master, South African Merino, South African Mutton Merino, Van Rooy, and Dorper), goat (SA veld, Tankwa, Imbuzi, Bantu, Boer, and Savanna) and cattle (Afrigus, Afrikaner, Bolowana, Bonsmara, Bovelder, Drakensberger, South African Angus, South African Dairy Swiss, South African Friesland, South African Red, and Veld Master) animals. These breeds require less veterinary service, feed, management efforts, provide income to rural and or poor owners. However, most of them are under extinction risks and some with unknown status hence, require immediate conservation intervention. To allow faster genetic progress on the endangered animals, it is important to generate productive animals while reducing wastages and this can be achieved through sex-sorted semen. Therefore, this systematic review is aimed to evaluate the prospects of X and Y-sexed semen in ruminant livestock and some solutions that can be used to address poor sex-sorted semen and its fertility. This review was incorporated through gathering and assessing relevant articles and through the data from the DAD-IS database. The keywords that were used to search articles online were pre-gender selection, indigenous ecotypes, fertility, flow cytometry, artificial insemination, conservation, and improving sexed semen. Following a careful review of all articles, PRISMA guidelines were used to find the articles that are suitable to address the aim of this review. Sex-sorted semen is a recently introduced technology gaining more attention from researchers particularly, in the conservation programs. Preselection of semen based on the sex chromosomes (X- and or Y-bearing chromosomes) is of paramount importance to obtain desired sex of the offspring and avoid animal wastage as much as possible. However, diverse factors can affect quality of semen of different animal species especially after sex-sorting. Flow cytometry is a common method used to select male and female sperm cells and discard dead and abnormal sperm cells during the process. Thus, sperm sexing is a good advanced reproductive technology (ART) however, it is associated with the production of oxidative stress (OS) and DNA fragmentation (SDF). These findings, therefore, necessitates more innovation studies to come up with a sexing technology that will protect sperm cell injuries during sorting in frozen-thawed.
PubMed: 38655533
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1384768 -
PloS One 2014Recent studies have indicated the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists (GnRH-ant) as an adjuvant treatment to prevent premature luteinization (PL) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recent studies have indicated the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists (GnRH-ant) as an adjuvant treatment to prevent premature luteinization (PL) and improve the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with intrauterine insemination (IUI). However, the results of these studies are conflicting.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials aiming to compare the clinical efficacy of GnRH-ant in COS/IUI cycles. Twelve studies were identified that met inclusion criteria and comprised 2,577 cycles assigned to COS/IUI combined GnRH-ant or COS/IUI alone.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis results suggested that GnRH-ant can significantly increase the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.78) and decrease the PL rate (OR = 0.22, 95% CI, 0.16-0.30) in COS/IUI cycles. Subgroup analysis results suggested statistically significant improvement in the CPR in non-PCOS patients (OR = 1.54; 95% CI, 1.03-2.31) but not in the PCOS population (OR = 1.65; 95% CI, 0.93-2.94) and multiple mature follicle cycles (OR = 1.87; 95% CI, 0.27-12.66). There were no difference in the miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates between the groups.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggested that GnRH-ant can reduce the incidence of PL and increase the CPR when used in COS/IUI cycles, and it was especially useful for non-PCOS patients. However, evidence to support its use in PCOS patients is still insufficient.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Gonadotropins; Hormone Antagonists; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Luteinization; Male; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Young Adult
PubMed: 25299186
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109133 -
Medicine Jul 2020With the medical advancement some studies put forward that letrozole (LE), a specific aromatase inhibitor with the function of reducing oestrogen synthesis, has recently... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of clomiphene and letrozole for superovulation in patients with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
With the medical advancement some studies put forward that letrozole (LE), a specific aromatase inhibitor with the function of reducing oestrogen synthesis, has recently been applied as a potentially better alternative compared with clomiphene citrate (CC), owing to that it has a superior efficacy as compared with CC in patients of unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI). However, there is no one study can clear and definite whether LE can replace the CC as first line drug.
OBJECTIVE
Our objective is to compare the LE with CC in the induction of ovulation in patients with unexplained infertility IUI.
METHOD
Searching databases consist of all kinds of searching tools, such as Medline, The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, etc. All the include studies should meet our demand of this meta-analysis: RESULT:: Based on the current meta-analysis, we rigorously consider that LE has a likelihood to improve dominant follicles (MD= -0.56, I= 100%, P= .04; MD= -0.39, I= 73%, P = .0003, respectively) and reduces the miscarriage rate (RR= 0.61, I= 0%, P = .03). There is no significant differences between the 2 groups in The total rate of pregnancy, pregnancy rate per cycle, multiple pregnancy and endometrial thickness. (RR= 1.06, I= 11%, P = .38; RR= 1.09, I= 7%, P = .32; RR= 0.79, I= 0%, P = .46; respectively) CONCLUSION:: Combined with the results of current systematic review and meta-analysis through subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis, we can be cautious: in general, compared with CC, LE is an effective treatment in the IUI cycle, has a likelihood to improve dominant follicles and reduces the miscarriage rate.
Topics: Clomiphene; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Insemination, Artificial; Letrozole; Superovulation
PubMed: 32756085
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Intrauterine insemination (IUI), combined with ovarian stimulation (OS), has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for infertile couples. Several agents for... (Review)
Review
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; I = 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; I = 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; I = 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; I = 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; I = 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; I = 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; I=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; I=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; I = 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; I = 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.
Topics: Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Infertility, Female; Insemination; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Male; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate
PubMed: 34739136
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005356.pub3 -
AIDS and Behavior Sep 2018We conducted a systematic review of safer conception strategies (SCS) for HIV-affected couples in sub-Saharan Africa to inform evidence-based safer conception...
We conducted a systematic review of safer conception strategies (SCS) for HIV-affected couples in sub-Saharan Africa to inform evidence-based safer conception interventions. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched fifteen electronic databases using the following inclusion criteria: SCS research in HIV-affected couples; published after 2007; in sub-Saharan Africa; primary research; peer-reviewed; and addressed a primary topic of interest (SCS availability, feasibility, and acceptability, and/or education and promotion). Researchers independently reviewed each study for eligibility using a standardized tool. We categorize studies by their topic area. We identified 41 studies (26 qualitative and 15 quantitative) that met inclusion criteria. Reviewed SCSs included: antiretroviral therapy (ART), pre-exposure prophylaxis, timed unprotected intercourse, manual/self-insemination, sperm washing, and voluntary male medical circumcision (VMMC). SCS were largely unavailable outside of research settings, except for general availability (i.e., not specifically for safer conception) of ART and VMMC. SCS acceptability was impacted by low client and provider knowledge about safer conception services, stigma around HIV-affected couples wanting children, and difficulty with HIV disclosure in HIV-affected couples. Couples expressed desire to learn more about SCS; however, provider training, patient education, SCS promotions, and integration of reproductive health and HIV services remain limited. Studies of provider training and couple-based education showed improvements in communication around fertility intentions and SCS knowledge. SCS are not yet widely available to HIV-affected African couples. Successful implementation of SCS requires that providers receive training on effective SCS and provide couple-based safer conception counseling to improve disclosure and communication around fertility intentions and reproductive health.
Topics: Africa South of the Sahara; Anti-Retroviral Agents; Circumcision, Male; Counseling; Disclosure; Female; Fertility; Fertilization; HIV Infections; Health Services Accessibility; Heterosexuality; Humans; Insemination, Artificial; Intention; Male; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; Preconception Care; Reproductive Behavior; Reproductive Health; Sexual Partners; Social Stigma
PubMed: 29869184
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-018-2170-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021In subfertile couples, couples who have tried to conceive for at least one year, intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is one of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In subfertile couples, couples who have tried to conceive for at least one year, intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is one of the treatment modalities that can be offered. When IUI is performed a second IUI in the same cycle might add to the chances of conceiving. In a previous update of this review in 2010 it was shown that double IUI increases pregnancy rates when compared to single IUI. Since 2010, different clinical trials have been published with differing conclusions about whether double IUI increases pregnancy rates compared to single IUI.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of double intrauterine insemination (IUI) compared to single IUI in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in July 2020 and LILACS, Google scholar and Epistemonikos in February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled, parallel trials of double versus single IUIs in stimulated cycles in subfertile couples.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified in nine studies involving subfertile women. The evidence was of low quality; the main limitations were unclear risk of bias, inconsistent results for some outcomes and imprecision, due to small trials with imprecise results. We are uncertain whether double IUI improves live birth rate compared to single IUI (odds ratio (OR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.88; I = 29%; studies = 3, participants = 468; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth following single IUI is 16%, the chance of live birth following double IUI would be between 12% and 27%. Performing a sensitivity analysis restricted to only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with low risk of selection bias showed similar results. We are uncertain whether double IUI reduces miscarriage rate compared to single IUI (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.24; I = 0%; studies = 6, participants = 2363; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that chance of miscarriage following single IUI is 1.5% and the chance following double IUI would be between 1.5% and 5%. The reported clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised may increase with double IUI group (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.86; I = 34%; studies = 9, participants = 2716; low quality evidence). This result should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality of the evidence and the moderate inconsistency. The evidence suggests that the chance of a pregnancy following single IUI is 14% and the chance following double IUI would be between 16% and 23%. We are uncertain whether double IUI affects multiple pregnancy rate compared to single IUI (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.56; I = 8%; studies = 5; participants = 2203; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that chance of multiple pregnancy following single IUI is 0.7% and the chance following double IUI would be between 0.85% and 3.7%. We are uncertain whether double IUI has an effect on ectopic pregnancy rate compared to single IUI (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.28; I = 0%; studies = 4, participants = 1048; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that the chance of an ectopic pregnancy following single IUI is 0.8% and the chance following double IUI would be between 0.3% and 3.2%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our main analysis, of which the evidence is low quality, shows that we are uncertain if double IUI improves live birth and reduces miscarriage compared to single IUI. Our sensitivity analysis restricted to studies of low risk of selection bias for both outcomes is consistent with the main analysis. Clinical pregnancy rate may increase in the double IUI group, but this should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. We are uncertain whether double IUI has an effect on multiple pregnancy rate and ectopic pregnancy rate compared to single IUI.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Bias; Confidence Intervals; Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Insemination, Artificial, Homologous; Live Birth; Male; Odds Ratio; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retreatment; Selection Bias
PubMed: 34260059
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003854.pub2 -
Journal of Dairy Science May 2017Presynchronization of cows with 2 injections of prostaglandin administered 14 d apart (Presynch-Ovsynch) is a widely adopted procedure to increase pregnancy per... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evaluation of prostaglandin F versus prostaglandin F plus gonadotropin-releasing hormone as Presynch methods preceding an Ovsynch in lactating dairy cows: A meta-analysis.
Presynchronization of cows with 2 injections of prostaglandin administered 14 d apart (Presynch-Ovsynch) is a widely adopted procedure to increase pregnancy per artificial insemination (P/AI) at first service. Recently, a presynchronization protocol including GnRH and PGF (Double-Ovsynch; GnRH, 7 d, PGF, 3 d, GnRH) followed 7 d later by an Ovsynch protocol was introduced to overcome the limitations of PGF-based protocols for presynchronization of anovular cows and to precisely set up cows on d 7 of the estrous cycle when the Ovsynch is initiated. A systematic review of the literature and a meta-analytical assessment was performed with the objective to compare the reproductive performance of lactating dairy cows presynchronized with these 2 protocols for the first timed AI (TAI) considering parity-specific effects. A fixed or a random effects meta-analysis was used based on the heterogeneity among the experimental groups. Reproductive outcomes of interest were P/AI measured on d 32 (28-42) and pregnancy loss between d 32 and 60 (42-74) of gestation. A total of 25 articles with 27 experimental groups from 63 herds including 21,046 cows submitted to first TAI using either a Presynch-Ovsynch or a Double-Ovsynch protocol were reviewed. Results for P/AI were then categorized by parity if available. Information was available for P/AI for 7,400 and 10,999 primiparous and multiparous cows, respectively. Information regarding pregnancy loss was available for 7,477 cows. In the random effects model for all cows, the overall proportion of P/AI was 41.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 39.1-44.3; n = 8,213] and 46.2% (95% CI: 41.9-50.5; n = 12,833) on d 32 after TAI for Presynch-Ovsynch and Double-Ovsynch, respectively. In the random effects model for primiparous cows, the overall proportion of P/AI was 43.4% (95% CI: 36.2-47.7; n = 2,614) and 51.4% (95% CI: 47.4-55.4; n = 4,786) on d 32 after TAI for Presynch-Ovsynch and Double-Ovsynch, respectively. In the random effects model for multiparous cows, the overall proportion of P/AI was 39.2% (95% CI: 36.2-42.3; n = 3,411) and 41.4% (95% CI: 36.4-46.4; n = 7,588) on d 32 after TAI for Presynch-Ovsynch and Double-Ovsynch, respectively. The overall proportion of pregnancy loss was 11.3% (95% CI: 7.6-15.7; n = 3,247) and 11.7% (95% CI: 9.3-14.3; n = 4,230) on d 60 after AI for Presynch-Ovsynch to and Double-Ovsynch, respectively. Substantial heterogeneity existed among the experimental groups regarding P/AI and pregnancy loss. In summary, a benefit was detected for P/AI in primiparous cows presynchronized with a Double-Ovsynch protocol for the first TAI, but this benefit was not observed in multiparous cows.
Topics: Abortion, Veterinary; Animals; Cattle; Dinoprost; Estrus Synchronization; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Insemination, Artificial; Lactation; Progesterone
PubMed: 28318589
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-11956 -
Fertility and Sterility Feb 2020To compare live birth and multiple gestation in patients diagnosed with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination after ovarian stimulation (OS-IUI)... (Meta-Analysis)
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.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Clomiphene; Female; Fertility; Fertility Agents, Female; Gonadotropins; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Letrozole; Live Birth; Ovary; Ovulation; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 31973903
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.09.042 -
Reproduction & Fertility May 2024Chronic endometritis (CE) in humans is asymptomatic inflammation of the endometrium, associated with poor reproductive outcomes. Similarly asymptomatic endometrial...
Chronic endometritis (CE) in humans is asymptomatic inflammation of the endometrium, associated with poor reproductive outcomes. Similarly asymptomatic endometrial inflammation in cows, termed subclinical endometritis (SCE), is associated with adverse reproductive outcomes. While the pathophysiology and treatment options for CE in humans remains poorly defined, the financial implications of SCE in dairy cows mean it has been intensively researched. We performed a systematic review with an emergent theme thematic analysis of studies of SCE in cows, to determine potential areas of interest in human CE research. A literature search for studies of subclinical endometritis in cows published between 1990 and November 2021 was performed across Embase, Medline, Scopus and CINAHL. Studies of symptomatic or clinical endometritis were excluded. Thematic analysis across two broad themes were explored: diagnostic methods and pathophysiology of SCE. In total, 44 bovine studies were included. 12 studies reported on diagnostic methodology. The primary emergent theme was the use of cytology for the diagnosis of SCE. This method has a lower sensitivity than histopathology but is less invasive and more specific than alternative techniques of ultrasound, vaginoscopy, or metabolic markers. The subthemes related to pathophysiology were identified as type of endometritis, metabolic stress, artificial insemination, infective causes, and altered cellular pathways. Despite the lack of symptoms, cellular pathways of inflammation including NFkB, MAPK, and inflammasomes were found to be activated. The key themes related to the diagnosis and pathophysiology of SCE in cows identified in this systematic review highlight potential areas for future research into human CE.
PubMed: 38734031
DOI: 10.1530/RAF-23-0035