-
Human Reproduction Update May 2023Since the birth of the first baby using IVF technology in 1978, over 10 million children have been conceived via ART. Although most aspects of ARTs were developed in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Since the birth of the first baby using IVF technology in 1978, over 10 million children have been conceived via ART. Although most aspects of ARTs were developed in animal models, the introduction of these technologies into clinical practice was performed without comprehensive assessment of their long-term safety. The monitoring of these technologies over time has revealed differences in the physiology of babies produced using ARTs, yet due to the pathology of those presenting for treatment, it is challenging to separate the cause of infertility from the effect of treatments offered. The use of systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impacts of the predominant ART interventions used clinically in human populations on animals produced in healthy fertile populations offers an alternative approach to understanding the long-term safety of reproductive technologies.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the evidence available from animal studies on physiological outcomes in the offspring conceived after IVF, IVM or ICSI, compared to in vivo fertilization, and to provide an overview on the landscape of research in this area.
SEARCH METHODS
PubMed, Embase and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts were searched for relevant studies published until 27 August 2021. Search terms relating to assisted reproductive technology, postnatal outcomes and mammalian animal models were used. Studies that compared postnatal outcomes between in vitro-conceived (IVF, ICSI or IVM) and in vivo-conceived mammalian animal models were included. In vivo conception included mating, artificial insemination, or either of these followed by embryo transfer to a recipient animal with or without in vitro culture. Outcomes included birth weight, gestation length, cardiovascular, metabolic and behavioural characteristics and lifespan.
OUTCOMES
A total of 61 studies in five different species (bovine, equine, murine, ovine and non-human primate) met the inclusion criteria. The bovine model was the most frequently used in IVM studies (32/40), while the murine model was mostly used in IVF (17/20) and ICSI (6/8) investigations. Despite considerable heterogeneity, these studies suggest that the use of IVF or maturation results in offspring with higher birthweights and a longer length of gestation, with most of this evidence coming from studies in cattle. These techniques may also impair glucose and lipid metabolism in male mice. The findings on cardiovascular outcomes and behaviour outcomes were inconsistent across studies.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
Conception via in vitro or in vivo means appears to have an influence on measurable outcomes of offspring physiology, manifesting differently across the species studied. Importantly, it can be noted that these measurable differences are noticeable in healthy, fertile animal populations. Thus, common ART interventions may have long-term consequences for those conceived through these techniques, regardless of the pathology underpinning diagnosed infertility. However, due to heterogeneous methods, results and measured outcomes, highlighted in this review, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions. Optimizing animal and human studies that investigate the safety of new reproductive technologies will provide insight into safeguarding the introduction of novel interventions into the clinical setting. Cautiously prescribing the use of ARTs clinically may also be considered to reduce the chance of promoting adverse outcomes in children conceived before long-term safety is confidently documented.
Topics: Animals; Male; Humans; Cattle; Horses; Sheep; Mice; Fertilization in Vitro; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Fertilization; Infertility; Proteins; Mammals
PubMed: 36611003
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmac043 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Aug 2023To review the current knowledge concerning COVID-19 vaccination and assisted reproductive techniques (ART). A systematic review in Pubmed-Medline, the Cochrane... (Review)
Review
To review the current knowledge concerning COVID-19 vaccination and assisted reproductive techniques (ART). A systematic review in Pubmed-Medline, the Cochrane Database, the Web of Science, and the National Guideline was performed. Studies were selected if they were primary studies, included vaccinated (case) and unvaccinated (control) patients, and described fertility treatment response. A total of 24 studies were selected. Outcomes related to the association between COVID-19 vaccination and ART were collected. The vast majority of studies found no statistical differences concerning oocyte stimulation response, embryo quality, implantation rates, or pregnancy outcome (clinical or biochemical pregnancy rates and losses) when comparing cases and controls. Similarly, no differences were found when comparing different types of vaccines or distinct ART (artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and embryo transfer of frozen embryos). Patients receiving ART and health care professionals should be encouraged to complete and recommend COVID-19 vaccination, as the available evidence regarding assisted reproductive outcomes is reassuring.
PubMed: 37623482
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13081232 -
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is a widely-used fertility treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Although IUI is less invasive and less expensive than in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is a widely-used fertility treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Although IUI is less invasive and less expensive than in vitro fertilisation (IVF), the safety of IUI in combination with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is debated. The main concern about IUI treatment with OH is the increase in multiple pregnancy rates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether, for couples with unexplained subfertility, the live birth rate is improved following IUI treatment with or without OH compared to timed intercourse (TI) or expectant management with or without OH, or following IUI treatment with OH compared to IUI in a natural cycle.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 17 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors for missing or unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI with TI or expectant management, both in stimulated or natural cycles, or IUI in stimulated cycles with IUI in natural cycles in couples with unexplained subfertility.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. Primary review outcomes were live birth rate and multiple pregnancy rate.
MAIN RESULTS
We include 15 trials with 2068 women. The evidence was of very low to moderate quality. The main limitation was very serious imprecision. IUI in a natural cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a natural cycle It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a natural cycle improves live birth rate compared to treatment with expectant management in a natural cycle (odds ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.78; 1 RCT, 334 women; low-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with expectant management in a natural cycle to be 16%, that of IUI in a natural cycle would be between 15% and 34%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a natural cycle reduces multiple pregnancy rates compared to control (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.53; 1 RCT, 334 women; low-quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a stimulated cycle It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle improves live birth rates compared to treatment with TI in a stimulated cycle (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.88; 2 RCTs, 208 women; I = 72%; low-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of achieving a live birth with TI in a stimulated cycle was 26%, the chance with IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 23% and 50%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle reduces multiple pregnancy rates compared to control (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.87; 4 RCTs, 316 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a natural cycle In couples with a low prediction score of natural conception, treatment with IUI combined with clomiphene citrate or letrozole probably results in a higher live birth rate compared to treatment with expectant management in a natural cycle (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.00 to 10.01; 1 RCT; 201 women; moderate-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with expectant management in a natural cycle was 9%, the chance of a live birth with IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 17% and 50%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle results in a lower multiple pregnancy rate compared to control (OR 3.01, 95% CI 0.47 to 19.28; 2 RCTs, 454 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). IUI in a natural cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a stimulated cycle Treatment with IUI in a natural cycle probably results in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with expectant management in a stimulated cycle (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.44; 1 RCT, 342 women: moderate-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with expectant management in a stimulated cycle was 13%, the chance of a live birth with IUI in a natural cycle would be between 14% and 34%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a natural cycle results in a lower multiple pregnancy rate compared to control (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.90; 1 RCT, 342 women; low-quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus IUI in a natural cycle Treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle may result in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with IUI in a natural cycle (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.50; 4 RCTs, 396 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with IUI in a natural cycle was 14%, the chance of a live birth with IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 17% and 36%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle results in a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared to control (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 78.27; 2 RCTs, 65 women; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to insufficient data, it is uncertain whether treatment with IUI with or without OH compared to timed intercourse or expectant management with or without OH improves cumulative live birth rates with acceptable multiple pregnancy rates in couples with unexplained subfertility. However, treatment with IUI with OH probably results in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to expectant management without OH in couples with a low prediction score of natural conception. Similarly, treatment with IUI in a natural cycle probably results in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with timed intercourse with OH. Treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle may result in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with IUI in a natural cycle.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Coitus; Female; Fertile Period; Fertility Agents, Female; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Male; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 32124980
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub6 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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; Male; 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