-
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 -
Reproduction & Fertility May 2024Chronic endometritis (CE) in humans is asymptomatic inflammation of the endometrium, associated with poor reproductive outcomes. Similarly asymptomatic endometrial...
Chronic endometritis (CE) in humans is asymptomatic inflammation of the endometrium, associated with poor reproductive outcomes. Similarly asymptomatic endometrial inflammation in cows, termed subclinical endometritis (SCE), is associated with adverse reproductive outcomes. While the pathophysiology and treatment options for CE in humans remains poorly defined, the financial implications of SCE in dairy cows mean it has been intensively researched. We performed a systematic review with an emergent theme thematic analysis of studies of SCE in cows, to determine potential areas of interest in human CE research. A literature search for studies of subclinical endometritis in cows published between 1990 and November 2021 was performed across Embase, Medline, Scopus and CINAHL. Studies of symptomatic or clinical endometritis were excluded. Thematic analysis across two broad themes were explored: diagnostic methods and pathophysiology of SCE. In total, 44 bovine studies were included. 12 studies reported on diagnostic methodology. The primary emergent theme was the use of cytology for the diagnosis of SCE. This method has a lower sensitivity than histopathology but is less invasive and more specific than alternative techniques of ultrasound, vaginoscopy, or metabolic markers. The subthemes related to pathophysiology were identified as type of endometritis, metabolic stress, artificial insemination, infective causes, and altered cellular pathways. Despite the lack of symptoms, cellular pathways of inflammation including NFkB, MAPK, and inflammasomes were found to be activated. The key themes related to the diagnosis and pathophysiology of SCE in cows identified in this systematic review highlight potential areas for future research into human CE.
PubMed: 38734031
DOI: 10.1530/RAF-23-0035 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a treatment for unexplained subfertility but is invasive, expensive, and associated with risks. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a treatment for unexplained subfertility but is invasive, expensive, and associated with risks.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF versus expectant management, unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI), and IUI with ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins, clomiphene citrate (CC), or letrozole in improving pregnancy outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched following databases from inception to November 2021, with no language restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL. We searched reference lists of articles and conference abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness of IVF for unexplained subfertility with expectant management, unstimulated IUI, and stimulated IUI.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods.
MAIN RESULTS
IVF versus expectant management (two RCTs) We are uncertain whether IVF improves live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 22.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37; 1 RCT; 51 women; very low-quality evidence; OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 9.8; 2 RCTs; 86 women; I = 80%; very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported. Assuming 4% LBR and 12% CPR with expectant management, these would be 8.8% to 9% and 13% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus unstimulated IUI (two RCTs) IVF may improve LBR compared to unstimulated IUI (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.12; 2 RCTs; 156 women; I = 60%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference between IVF and IUI for multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.04 to 27.29; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence) and miscarriage rate (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.14 to 21.25; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence). No study reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming 16% LBR, 3% MPR, and 6% miscarriage rate with unstimulated IUI, these outcomes would be 18.5% to 49%, 0.1% to 46%, and 0.9% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus IUI + ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (6 RCTs), CC (1 RCT), or letrozole (no RCTs) Stratified analysis was based on pretreatment status. Treatment-naive women There may be little or no difference in LBR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.92; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I = 54%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.55; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 42% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 26% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), LBR would be 39% to 54% and 24% to 51% with IVF. Assuming 15% LBR with IUI + CC, LBR would be 15% to 54% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in CPR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.59; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 4.59, 95% CI 1.86 to 11.35; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.51 to 8.49; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 48% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 17% with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), CPR would be 44% to 60% and 28% to 70% with IVF. Assuming 21% CPR with IUI + CC, CPR would be 29% to 69% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.77; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.41; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in OHSS between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 6.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 134.59; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference in OHSS with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.16; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.57; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in miscarriage rate between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.04; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.05; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). In women pretreated with IUI + CC IVF may improve LBR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.32 to 6.57; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 22% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins, LBR would be 39% to 65% with IVF. IVF may improve CPR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 14.13, 95% CI 7.57 to 26.38; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 30% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins, CPR would be 76% to 92% with IVF.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
IVF may improve LBR over unstimulated IUI. Data should be interpreted with caution as overall evidence quality was low.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Letrozole; Abortion, Spontaneous; Insemination, Artificial; Fertility Agents, Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Infertility; Clomiphene; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Gonadotropins; Pregnancy Rate; Live Birth
PubMed: 37753821
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003357.pub5 -
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 -
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 -
Reproductive Sciences (Thousand Oaks,... May 2023The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of endometrial scratch on the pregnancy rate among women with previous failed intrauterine insemination (IUI). A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The Effect of Endometrial Scratch on Pregnancy Rate in Women with Previous Intrauterine Insemination Failure: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of endometrial scratch on the pregnancy rate among women with previous failed intrauterine insemination (IUI). A systematic search was done in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ISI web of science from inception to November 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared endometrial scratch in the intervention group versus placebo or no intervention in the control group among infertile women with previous failure of IUI regarding different pregnancy outcomes. Revman software was utilized for performing our meta-analysis. Our main outcomes were biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates. Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 989 patients. We found endometrial scratch significantly improved the biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates in comparison with the control group among women with previous IUI failure (p < 0.001). Moreover, the live birth rate was significantly increased among the endometrial scratch group (RR = 2.00, 95% CI [1.20, 3.34], p = 0.008). In conclusion, endometrial scratch is effective in improving pregnancy outcomes among women with previous IUI failure. More trials are required to confirm our findings.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Fertilization in Vitro; Endometrium; Live Birth; Insemination; Insemination, Artificial; Ovulation Induction
PubMed: 36121616
DOI: 10.1007/s43032-022-01081-z -
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... 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