-
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Jan 2020There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of sperm DNA fragmentation as a candidate test for the assessment of sperm function and thus male... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of sperm DNA fragmentation as a candidate test for the assessment of sperm function and thus male reproductive potential. Research on the subject has mostly been focused on couples undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment whilst much uncertainty still exists about the relationship between sperm DNA fragmentation and IUI. This study systematically reviews the literature, aiming to define the value of sperm DNA fragmentation measurement in predicting clinical pregnancy outcome in couples undergoing intra-uterine insemination From inception until March 2018, the relevant databases were searched for studies investigating the relationship between sperm DNA fragmentation as measured by SCSA, TUNEL, SCD or Comet assay and pregnancy outcome after IUI. The Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool was utilized for quality assessment. This review is reported according to the 2009 PRISMA statement. The literature search resulted in 433 studies of which we finally retained nine studies for the qualitative analysis and four studies for the meta-analysis, accounting for 940 IUI cycles. In summary, the observed effect of low sperm DNA fragmentation on clinical pregnancy after IUI as analyzed with the random effects model reveals a relative risk of 3.15 (95% CI: 1.46-6.79; I2 = 13.1%) and pooled sensitivity and specificity of respectively 94% (95% CI: 0.88; 0.97) and 19% (95% CI: 0.14; 0.26). Taken together, the included studies show a limited capacity of sperm DNA fragmentation in discriminating between couples who will benefit from the test, namely in either predicting IUI outcome or in advising for or against IUI as first choice of treatment instead of advancing to more invasive medically assisted reproduction. This review has thrown up many questions in need of further investigation. As such, future studies might explore issues such as determining relevant cut-off values for prediction of spontaneous pregnancy and pregnancy after IUI as well as the assessment of the stability of the test over time and before and after density gradient centrifugation.
Topics: DNA; DNA Fragmentation; Female; Humans; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Spermatozoa
PubMed: 31707171
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.005 -
Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine Mar 2015Antibiotic therapies used in treatment of many diseases have adverse effects on fertility. This review analyzes previous comparative studies that surveyed the effects of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Antibiotic therapies used in treatment of many diseases have adverse effects on fertility. This review analyzes previous comparative studies that surveyed the effects of two common groups of antibiotics on male fertility.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate histo-pathological effects of fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides on sperm parameters and male reproductive tissue.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Articles about the effects of aminoglycosides and fluoroquinolones on male infertility, sperm parameters, male reproductive tissue, and spermatogenesis in English and Persian languages published on Google Scholar and PubMed databases from January 2000 to December 2013 were assessed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of aminoglycosides or fluoroquinolones on sperm parameters, artificial insemination, and male reproductive tract or RCTs comparing aminoglycosides vs. fluoroquinolones were eligible for inclusion. For ascertaining the reliability of study, data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two investigators.
RESULTS
Sperm viability was decreased significantly with streptomycin, gentamicin, and neomycin (p<0.001). Sperm motility was decreased significantly with gentamicin and neomycin (p<0.05). Total sperm count was significantly decreased with ofloxacin, gentamicin, streptomycin, and neomycin (p<0.022). There was significant decrease in post-thawing motility with low dose and high dose of ciprofloxacin. Testis weight was decreased with gentamicin and ofloxacin significantly (p<0.011). There was significant decrease in seminal vesicle weight with gentamicin, neomycin, and ofloxacin (p<0.022). Furthermore, changes in epididymis weight, percentage of total apoptotic cells, and diameter of seminiferous tubule were significant with all drugs including streptomycin, gentamicin, neomycin, and ofloxacin (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION
Streptomycin has less negative effects on cell's apoptosis and sperm parameters as compared to other drugs. Gentamicin has more detrimental effects so lesser dosage and duration is recommended. Fluoroquinolones showed negative effects on testis tissue and sperm parameters. Ciprofloxacin has less adverse effects than gentamicin in artificial insemination.
PubMed: 26000002
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2007Artificial insemination with sperm is used to improve the chances of conception for various causes of infertility. Traditionally, sperm is deposited in or around the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Artificial insemination with sperm is used to improve the chances of conception for various causes of infertility. Traditionally, sperm is deposited in or around the endocervical canal (cervical insemination - CI). Some studies reported higher pregnancy rates if sperm was deposited in the uterine cavity itself (intrauterine insemination - IUI), but most were uncontrolled. However the cost and the risks (infection and anaphylaxis) of IUI may also be higher.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of depositing donor sperm in the uterine cavity (intrauterine insemination) compared to cervical insemination.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Subfertility Review Group specialised register of controlled trials was searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing intrauterine insemination and cervical insemination, using fresh or cryopreserved semen, with or without ovarian hyperstimulation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Trial quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies were included. They comprised 697 patients undergoing 2215 treatment cycles. Ten trials used frozen semen, with three using ovarian hyperstimulation. Overall the methodological quality of the trials was low. The overall pregnancy rate per cycle in the intrauterine insemination group was 18% compared to 5% for cervical insemination. When cryopreserved donor sperm was used, the overall chance of pregnancy in spontaneous or clomiphene-corrected cycles was significantly higher with intrauterine insemination. This was irrespective of whether pregnancy rates were calculated on a per cycle (odds ratio 2.63, 95% confidence interval 1.85 to 3.73) or per patient (odds ratio 3.86, 95% confidence interval 1.81 to 8.25) basis. The greatest benefit appeared in trials with poor pregnancy rates (less than 6%) for cervical insemination. There was no difference in pregnancy rate between intrauterine and cervical insemination when fresh donor sperm was used (odds ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 2.24).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Intrauterine insemination appears to be beneficial when cervical insemination using cryopreserved donor sperm has had low pregnancy rates. This applies to spontaneous, clomiphene corrected and gonadotrophin stimulated cycles. However it may offer little benefit where high pregnancy rates have been achieved with cervical insemination. There appears to be no additional benefit from intrauterine insemination when fresh sperm is used for donor insemination.
Topics: Cervix Uteri; Female; Humans; Insemination, Artificial; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Uterus
PubMed: 17636628
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000317.pub2 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Jun 2017The cost of fertility treatment is expensive and interventions that reduce cost can lead to greater efficiency and fewer embryos transferred. Endometrial polyps... (Review)
Review
The cost of fertility treatment is expensive and interventions that reduce cost can lead to greater efficiency and fewer embryos transferred. Endometrial polyps contribute to infertility and are frequently removed prior to infertility treatment. It is unclear whether polypectomy reduces fertility treatment cost and if so, the magnitude of cost reduction afforded by the procedure. The aim of this study was to determine whether performing office or operative hysteroscopic polypectomy prior to infertility treatment would be cost-effective. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were used to identify publications reporting pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic polypectomy. Studies were required to have a polypectomy treatment group and control group of patients with polyps that were not resected. The charges of infertility treatments and polypectomy were obtained through infertility organizations and a private healthcare cost reporting website. These charges were applied to a decision tree model over the range of pregnancy rates observed in the representative studies to calculate an average cost per clinical or ongoing pregnancy. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess cost savings of polypectomy over a range of pregnancy rates and polypectomy costs. Pre-treatment office or operative hysteroscopic polypectomy ultimately saved €6658 ($7480) and €728 ($818), respectively, of the average cost per clinical pregnancy in women treated with four cycles of intrauterine insemination. Polypectomy prior to intrauterine insemination was cost-effective for clinical pregnancy rates greater than 30.2% for office polypectomy and 52.6% for operative polypectomy and for polypectomy price <€4414 ($4959). Office polypectomy or operative polypectomy saved €15,854 ($17,813) and €6644 ($7465), respectively, from the average cost per ongoing pregnancy for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treated women and was cost-effective for ongoing pregnancy rates greater than 26.4% (office polypectomy) and 31.7% (operative polypectomy) and polypectomy price <€6376 ($7164). These findings suggested that office or operative hysteroscopic polypectomy was cost-effective when performed prior to both intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization over a range of plausible pregnancy rates and procedural costs.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Costs and Cost Analysis; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Polyps; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Uterine Diseases
PubMed: 28445799
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.04.025 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2008Insemination with donor sperm is an option for couples for whom in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has been unsuccessful, couples... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Insemination with donor sperm is an option for couples for whom in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has been unsuccessful, couples with azoospermia and for single women or same sex couples. Insemination of sperm can be done via cervical (CI) or intra-uterine (IUI) routes. IUI has been considered potentially more effective than CI as the sperm bypasses the cervical mucus and is deposited closer to the fallopian tubes. The cost and risks of IUI may be higher because of the need for sperm preparation and the introduction of foreign material into the uterus. Donor sperm used for artificial insemination is mainly cryopreserved, due to concerns about HIV transmission. However, cycle fecundity is higher for fresh sperm. Insemination is often combined with ovulatory stimulation, with either clomiphene or gonadotrophin. There may be risks associated with these therapies, such as higher multiple pregnancy rates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether pregnancy outcomes are improved using intra-uterine insemination in comparison to cervical insemination in women undergoing artificial insemination with donor sperm.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The following databases were searched: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library) , MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the reference lists of articles retrieved.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing IUI with CI were included. Crossover studies were included if pre-crossover data was available.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Study quality assessment and data extraction were carried out independently by two review authors (DB, JM). Authors of studies that potentially met the inclusion criteria were contacted, where possible if additional information was needed.
MAIN RESULTS
The search strategy found 232 articles. Fifteen studies potentially met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were included in this review. All the included studies used cryopreserved sperm in stimulated cycles. In two studies 134 women had gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles and in two studies 74 women had clomiphene-stimulated cycles. The evidence showed that IUI after 6 cycles significantly improved live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 3.86) and pregnancy rates (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.90 to 5.96) in comparison to cervical insemination. There was no statistically significant evidence of an effect on multiple pregnancies (OR 2.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 6.07) or miscarriages (relative risk (RR) 3.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 17.96).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this systematic review support the use of IUI rather than CI in stimulated cycles using cryopreserved sperm for donor insemination.
Topics: Cervix Uteri; Cryopreservation; Female; Humans; Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Semen Preservation; Uterus
PubMed: 18425862
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000317.pub3 -
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 -
Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) Apr 2014What is the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) in semen? (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY QUESTION
What is the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) in semen?
SUMMARY ANSWER
HPV is present in the semen of asymptomatic men, with a pooled prevalence in a random effects meta-analysis of populations seeking fertility evaluation/treatment of 16%, versus 10% in other populations.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
The main risk of donor insemination (DI) is known to be contamination with an infectious agent. HPV is the necessary cause of cervical cancer, and plays an etiologic role in other anogenital cancers. Although it is known to be prevalent and sexually transmitted, donor semen specimens are not tested for the presence of HPV.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between January 1980 and June 2013 were performed. Variables collected included characteristics of study populations, method of semen preparation, HPV DNA detection and genotyping, HPV types targeted and proportion of HPV positivity.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
Two investigators independently assessed the studies for inclusion in the review and abstracted the data, while others reviewed the extracted data in detail. Studies were included if they provided data on HPV DNA prevalence in semen and PCR-based methods were used. For the meta-analysis, reports were separated according to the study populations, creating two distinct subgroups: populations seeking fertility evaluation/treatments, and other populations. Data were analysed using a random effects model for each subpopulation.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
The literature search identified 285 studies, and in the 27 studies that were included the HPV DNA prevalence in 4029 semen samples varied from 0 to 100%. The three studies focusing on sperm donors identified HPV DNA in 26.3, 7.5 and 16.0% of semen samples. HPV-16 was the most common type overall. The pooled prevalence in a random effects meta-analysis of seven studies focusing on infertile populations was 16% [95% confidence interval (CI): 10-23%] versus 10% (95% CI: 7-14%) in 11 reports focusing on other populations.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
First, despite defining clinically relevant subgroups, substantial heterogeneity remained. Secondly, although we retrieved data from reports in English or French only, after reviewing the five reports in other languages only two more could have been added and, as their prevalence estimates were similar to those of studies included in our review, we do not believe that exclusion of these reports biased our results or conclusions.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
HPV DNA can be found in donor semen and preliminary studies confirm genome activity. For this reason, and although the exact consequences of insemination with HPV-infected semen (cervical infections/lesions, impact on success rate of DI) remain to be clarified, we believe that HPV-infected sperm should be considered a health risk unless well-designed studies prove otherwise. The development and validation of adequate sperm washing techniques before DI appears to be a promising option.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
C.L. and P.M. have no conflicts of interests relevant to the submitted work. H.T. has served as a consultant and on advisory boards and has received speaker fees and travel assistance from Merck-Frosst Canada, Glaxo SmithKline Pharmaceuticals, Belgium and Gilead Sciences. F.C. has received grants through his institution from Merck and Roche, as well as honoraria from Merck and Roche for lectures on HPV. M.-H.M. has received grants though her institution from Merck and Qiagen and lecture honoraria from Merck and GSK for conferences on HPV and best practices in cervical cancer prevention.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
N/A.
Topics: Alphapapillomavirus; Humans; Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous; Papillomavirus Infections; Prevalence; Semen; Tissue and Organ Procurement
PubMed: 24365799
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det453 -
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... Feb 2016Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is a widely used fertility treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Although IUI is less invasive and less expensive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is a widely used fertility treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Although IUI is less invasive and less expensive thAppendixan in vitro fertilisation (IVF), the safety of IUI in combination with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is debated. The main concern about IUI treatment with OH is the increase in multiple pregnancy rate. This is an update of a Cochrane review (Veltman-Verhulst 2012) originally published in 2006 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether, for couples with unexplained subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rate compared with timed intercourse (TI), or expectant management, both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (formerly Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group) Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, inception to Issue 11, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers, all from inception to December 2015 and reference lists of articles. Authors of identified studies were contacted for missing or unpublished data. The evidence is current to December 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Truly randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparisons of IUI versus TI, in natural or stimulated cycles. Only couples with unexplained subfertility were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. We extracted outcomes, and pooled data and, where possible, we carried out subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 trials including 1867 women. IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference in cumulative live births between the two groups (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.78; 1 RCT; n = 334; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI was assumed to be 16%, that of IUI would be between 15% and 34%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.53; 1 RCT; n = 334; moderate quality evidence). IUI versus TI or expectant management both in stimulated cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference between the two treatment groups (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.88; 2 RCTs; n = 208; I(2) = 72%; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of achieving a live birth in TI was assumed to be 26%, the chance of a live birth with IUI would be between 23% and 50%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates between the two treatment groups (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.87; 4 RCTs, n = 316; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence). IUI in a natural cycle versus IUI in a stimulated cycle Live birth rate (all cycles)An increase in live birth rate was found for women who were treated with IUI in a stimulated cycle compared with those who underwent IUI in natural cycle (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, n = 396; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in IUI in a stimulated cycle was assumed to be 25%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a natural cycle would be between 9% and 21%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.70; 2 RCTs; n = 65; low quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus TI or expectant management in a natural cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.49; 1 RCT; n = 253; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI or expectant management in a natural cycle was assumed to be 24%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 12% and 32%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.34; 2 RCTs; n = 304; moderate quality evidence). IUI in natural cycle versus TI or expectant management in stimulated cycle Live birth rate (all cycles)There was evidence of an increase in live births for IUI (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.44; 1 RCT, n = 342; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI in a stimulated cycle was assumed to be 13%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a natural cycle would be between 14% and 34%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the groups (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.90; 1 RCT; n = 342; moderate quality evidence).The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. Quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitation being imprecision in the findings for both live birth and multiple pregnancy..
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review did not find conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth or multiple pregnancy in most of the comparisons for couples with unexplained subfertility treated with intra-uterine insemination (IUI) when compared with timed intercourse (TI), both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH). There were insufficient studies to allow for pooling of data on the important outcome measures for each of the comparisons.
Topics: Coitus; Female; Fertile Period; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Male; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 26892070
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub5 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Jan 2019Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the usefulness of pituitary block with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pituitary block with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist during intrauterine insemination cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the usefulness of pituitary block with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists during intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles, with conflicting results.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs was to evaluate the effectiveness of GnRH antagonist administration as an intervention to improve the success of IUI cycles.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Sciencedirect) and clinical registers were searched from their inception until October 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of infertile women undergoing one or more IUI stimulated cycles with GnRH antagonists compared with a control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate (OPR/LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). Pooled results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean differences with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Sources of heterogeneity were investigated through sensitivity and subgroups analysis. The body of evidence was rated using GRADE methodology. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plot, Begg's and Egger's tests.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen RCTs were included (3253 IUI cycles, 2345 participants). No differences in OPR/LBR (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.82-1.57, P = 0.44) and CPR (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.97-1.69, P = 0.08) were found. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses did not provide statistical changes in pooled results. The body of evidence was rated as low (GRADE 2/4). No publication bias was detected.
CONCLUSION
Pituitary block with GnRH antagonists does not improve OPR/LBR and CPR in women undergoing IUI cycles.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Pituitary block with GnRH antagonists does not improve the success of IUI cycles.
Topics: Female; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Infertility, Female; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Male; Ovulation Induction; Pituitary Gland; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29862633
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15269