-
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 -
Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are present in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases from their inception to 16 April 2018; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, ; MEDLINE, Embase , CINAHL , and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from 1 January 2014 to 12 May 2018) and we contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
Two studies met the inclusion criteria.1. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, we were uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17; P = 0.06, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improves the miscarriage rate compared to expectant management (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.00; P = 0.47, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth or hysteroscopy complication rates. We found no studies in women with endometrial polyps, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum for this randomised comparison.2. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI may have improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy only: if 28% of women achieved a clinical pregnancy without polyp removal, the evidence suggested that 63% of women (95% CI 45% to 89%) achieved a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96; P < 0.00001, 204 women; low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth, hysteroscopy complication or miscarriage rates in women with endometrial polyps prior to IUI. We found no studies in women with submucous fibroids, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum prior to IUI or in women with all types of suspected uterine cavity abnormalities prior to IVF/ICSI.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Uncertainty remains concerning an important benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the clinical pregnancy rates in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility. The available low-quality evidence suggests that the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may improve the clinical pregnancy rate compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy. More research is needed to measure the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic treatment of suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.
Topics: Coitus; Endometrium; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Leiomyoma; Live Birth; Polyps; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tissue Adhesions; Uterine Diseases; Uterus
PubMed: 30521679
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub4 -
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... Jan 2018The first-line treatment in donor sperm treatment consists of inseminations that can be done by intrauterine insemination (IUI) or by intracervical insemination (ICI). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
The first-line treatment in donor sperm treatment consists of inseminations that can be done by intrauterine insemination (IUI) or by intracervical insemination (ICI).
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine insemination (IUI) and intracervical insemination (ICI) in women who start donor sperm treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL in October 2016, checked references of relevant studies, and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, the Grey literature, and five trials registers on 15 December 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on IUI versus ICI in natural cycles or with ovarian stimulation, and RCTs comparing different cointerventions in IUI and ICI. We included cross-over studies if pre-cross-over data were available.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We collected data on primary outcomes of live birth and multiple pregnancy rates, and on secondary outcomes of clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and cancellation rates.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs (708 women analysed) on ICI and IUI in donor sperm treatment. Two studies compared IUI and ICI in natural cycles, two studies compared IUI and ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles, and two studies compared timing of IUI and ICI. There was very low-quality evidence; the main limitations were risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.IUI versus ICI in natural cyclesThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in live birth rate between IUI and ICI in natural cycles (odds ratio (OR) 3.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 87.13; 1 RCT, 26 women; very low-quality evidence). There was only one live birth in this study (in the IUI group). IUI resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR 6.18, 95% CI 1.91 to 20.03; 2 RCTs, 76 women; I² = 48%; very low-quality evidence).No multiple pregnancies or miscarriages occurred in this study.IUI versus ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cyclesThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in live birth rate between IUI and ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles (OR 2.55, 95% CI 0.72 to 8.96; 1 RCT, 43 women; very low-quality evidence). This suggested that if the chance of a live birth following ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles was assumed to be 30%, the chance following IUI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles would be between 24% and 80%. IUI may result in higher clinical pregnancy rates than ICI (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.78; 2 RCTs, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). IUI may be associated with higher multiple pregnancy rates than ICI (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.00 to 7.69; 2 RCTs, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). This suggested that if the risk of multiple pregnancy following ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles was assumed to be 10%, the risk following IUI would be between 10% and 46%.We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference between the groups in miscarriage rates in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.04; 2 RCTs, overall 67 pregnancies; I² = 50%; very low-quality evidence).Timing of IUI and ICIWe found no studies that reported on live birth rates.We found a higher clinical pregnancy rate when IUI was timed one day after a rise in blood levels of luteinising hormone (LH) compared to IUI two days after a rise in blood levels of LH (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.53; 1 RCT, 351 women; low-quality evidence). We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in clinical pregnancy rates between ICI timed after a rise in urinary levels of LH versus a rise in basal temperature plus cervical mucus scores (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.11; 1 RCT, 56 women; very low-quality evidence).Neither of these studies reported multiple pregnancy or miscarriage rates as outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a clear difference in live birth rates between IUI and ICI in natural or gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles in women who started with donor sperm treatment. There was insufficient evidence available for the effect of timing of IUI or ICI on live birth rates. Very low-quality data suggested that in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles, ICI may be associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate than IUI, but also with a higher risk of multiple pregnancy rate. We concluded that the current evidence was too limited to choose between IUI or ICI, in natural cycles or with ovarian stimulation, in donor sperm treatment.
Topics: Body Temperature; Cervix Mucus; Female; Gonadotropins; Humans; Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous; Live Birth; Luteinizing Hormone; Menstrual Cycle; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29368795
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000317.pub4 -
Journal of Dairy Science Oct 2017The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to identify and assess evidence and knowledge gaps in published observational studies that have... (Review)
Review
The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to identify and assess evidence and knowledge gaps in published observational studies that have investigated the relationship between mastitis and pregnancy loss (PL) in dairy cows. PubMed and ScienceDirect were used to search pertinent peer-reviewed research reports of interest. Screening of research reports was conducted at 3 levels: titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. The search identified 651 records for initial screening. The final screening process identified 8 qualified articles for review after removing 10 duplicate records, 582 titles, 31 abstracts, and 20 full-text articles. Two studies produced strong epidemiologic evidence indicating that (1) exposure to clinical mastitis during early gestation (first 45 d of gestation) is associated with subsequent PL during the following 90 d; and (2) subclinical mastitis 1 to 30 d before artificial insemination (AI) is associated with subsequent PL at 35 to 41 d of gestation. An additional study showed that exposure to clinical mastitis during early lactation in combination with low body condition can increase the risk of PL in dairy cows; however, the interaction effect between clinical mastitis and low body condition on PL was considered weak. Four other studies produced inconclusive evidence indicating that mastitis is a predisposing factor for PL in dairy cows, as the exposure risk period for mastitis overlapped with the follow-up period for diagnosis of PL in dairy cows. Finally, one study failed to identify a relationship between mastitis and PL in dairy cows. Further research is needed to (1) support the hypothesis that mastitis in combination with low body condition score (or other exposure factors) can increase the risk of PL, (2) compare the effect of clinical versus subclinical mastitis on PL, (3) compare the effect of mastitis before breeding and during gestation on PL, and (4) compare the effect of mastitis on PL in dairy cows during different lactations.
Topics: Abortion, Veterinary; Animals; Cattle; Female; Insemination, Artificial; Lactation; Mastitis, Bovine; Observational Studies as Topic; Pregnancy
PubMed: 28780088
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2017-12711 -
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 -
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 Apr 2017To evaluate the effect of progesterone (P) for luteal phase support after ovulation induction (OI) and intrauterine insemination (IUI). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of progesterone (P) for luteal phase support after ovulation induction (OI) and intrauterine insemination (IUI).
DESIGN
An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Patients undergoing OI-IUI for infertility.
INTERVENTION(S)
Exogenous P luteal support after OI-IUI.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Live birth.
RESULT(S)
Eleven trials were identified that met inclusion criteria and constituted 2,842 patients undergoing 4,065 cycles, more than doubling the sample size from the previous meta-analysis. In patients receiving gonadotropins for OI, clinical pregnancy (relative risk [RR] 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-2.02) and live birth (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.30-2.42) were more likely in P supplemented patients. These findings persisted in analysis of live birth per IUI cycle (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.24-2.04). There were no data on live birth in clomiphene citrate or clomiphene plus gonadotropin cycles. There was no benefit on clinical pregnancy with P support for patients who underwent OI with clomiphene (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52-1.41) or clomiphene plus gonadotropins (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.90-1.76).
CONCLUSION(S)
Progesterone luteal phase support is beneficial to patients undergoing ovulation induction with gonadotropins in IUI cycles. The number needed to treat is 11 patients to have one additional live birth. Progesterone support did not benefit patients undergoing ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate or clomiphene plus gonadotropins.
Topics: Female; Fertility; Fertility Agents; Gonadotropins; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Luteal Phase; Odds Ratio; Ovulation; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28238492
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.011 -
Lesbian and bisexual women's likelihood of becoming pregnant: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BJOG : An International Journal of... Feb 2017Few data exist regarding pregnancy in lesbian and bisexual (LB) women. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Few data exist regarding pregnancy in lesbian and bisexual (LB) women.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the likelihood of LB women becoming pregnant, naturally or assisted, in comparison with heterosexual women SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic review of papers published 1 January 2000 to 23 June 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies contained details of pregnancy rates among LB women compared with heterosexual women. No restriction on study design.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Inclusion decisions, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. Meta-analyses were carried out, with subgroups as appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 6859 papers identified, 104 full-text articles were requested, 30 papers (28 studies) were included. The odds ratio (OR) of ever being pregnant was 0.19 (95% CI 0.18-0.21) in lesbian women and 1.22 (95% CI 1.15-1.29) in bisexual women compared with heterosexual women. In the general population, the odds ratio for pregnancy was nine-fold lower among lesbian women and over two-fold lower among bisexual women (0.12 [95% CI 0.12-0.13] and 0.50 [95% CI 0.45-0.55], respectively). Odds ratios for pregnancy were higher for both LB adolescents (1.37 [95% CI 1.18-1.59] and 1.98 [95% CI 1.85, 2.13], respectively). There were inconsistent results regarding abortion rates. Lower rates of previous pregnancies were found in lesbian women undergoing artificial insemination (OR 0.17 [95% CI 0.11-0.26]) but there were higher assisted reproduction success rates compared with heterosexual women (OR 1.56 [95% CI 1.24-1.96]).
CONCLUSIONS
Heterosexuality must not be assumed in adolescents, as LB adolescents are at greater risk of unwanted pregnancies and terminations. Clinicians should provide appropriate information to all women, without assumptions about LB patients' desire for, or rejection of, fertility and childbearing.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Review of likelihood of LB women becoming pregnant: LB teenagers at greater risk of unwanted pregnancies.
Topics: Female; Homosexuality, Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Probability; Sexual and Gender Minorities; Sexuality
PubMed: 27981741
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14449 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Intra-uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intra-uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. The use of these treatments has been subject of discussion. Knowledge on the effectiveness of fertility treatments for male subfertility with different grades of severity is limited. Possibly, couples are exposed to unnecessary or ineffective treatments on a large scale.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different fertility treatments (expectant management, timed intercourse (TI), IUI, IVF and ICSI) for couples whose subfertility appears to be due to abnormal sperm parameters.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all publications that described randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the treatment for male subfertility. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the National Research Register from inception to 14 April 2015, and web-based trial registers from January 1985 to April 2015. We applied no language restrictions. We checked all references in the identified trials and background papers and contacted authors to identify relevant published and unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing different treatment options for male subfertility. These were expectant management, TI (with or without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH)), IUI (with or without OH), IVF and ICSI. We included only couples with abnormal sperm parameters.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. They resolved disagreements by discussion with the rest of the review authors. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per couple randomised.
MAIN RESULTS
The review included 10 RCTs (757 couples). The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and inconsistency. IUI versus TI (five RCTs)Two RCTs compared IUI with TI in natural cycles. There were no data on live birth or OHSS. We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy rates (2 RCTs, 62 couples: odds ratio (OR) 4.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 102, very low quality evidence; there were no events in one of the studies).Three RCTs compared IUI with TI both in cycles with OH. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 81 couples: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.59; low quality evidence) or pregnancy rates (3 RCTs, 202 couples: OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.07; I(2) = 11%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the 62 women had OHSS.One RCT compared IUI in cycles with OH with TI in natural cycles. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 44 couples: OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 81.35; very low quality evidence). Data on OHSS were not available. IUI in cycles with OH versus IUI in natural cycles (five RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (3 RCTs, 346 couples: OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.33; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence) and pregnancy rates (4 RCTs, 399 couples: OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.82; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. IVF versus IUI in natural cycles or cycles with OH (two RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF versus IUI in natural cycles (1 RCT, 53 couples: OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.35; low quality evidence) or IVF versus IUI in cycles with OH (2 RCTs, 86 couples: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.45; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the women had OHSS.Overall, we found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of live birth, pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage). However, most of the evidence was very low quality.There were no studies on IUI in natural cycles versus TI in stimulated cycles, IVF versus TI, ICSI versus TI, ICSI versus IUI (with OH) or ICSI versus IVF.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in safety and effectiveness between different treatments for male subfertility. More research is needed.
Topics: Birth Rate; Coitus; Female; Fertilization; Humans; Infertility, Male; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26915339
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000360.pub5