IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation for unexplained infertility: a collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: IVF and IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) are widely used in managing unexplained infertility. IUI-OS is generally considered first-line therapy, followed by IVF only if IUI-OS is unsuccessful after several attempts. However, there is a growing interest in using IVF for immediate treatment because it is believed to lead to higher live birth rates and shorter time to pregnancy. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVF versus IUI-OS had varied study designs and findings. Some RCTs used complex algorithms to combine IVF and IUI-OS, while others had unequal follow-up time between arms or compared treatments on a per-cycle basis, which introduced biases. Comparing cumulative live birth rates of IVF and IUI-OS within a consistent time frame is necessary for a fair head-to-head comparison. Previous meta-analyses of RCTs did not consider the time it takes to achieve pregnancy, which is not possible using aggregate data. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) allows standardization of follow-up time in different trials and time-to-event analysis methods. We performed this IPD-MA to investigate if IVF increases cumulative live birth rate considering the time leading to pregnancy and reduces multiple pregnancy rate compared to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register to identify RCTs that completed data collection before June 2021. A search update was carried out in January 2023. RCTs that compared IVF/ICSI to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility were eligible. We invited author groups of eligible studies to join the IPD-MA and share the deidentified IPD of their RCTs. IPD were checked and standardized before synthesis. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. OUTCOMES: Of eight potentially eligible RCTs, two were considered awaiting classification. In the other six trials, four shared IPD of 934 women, of which 550 were allocated to IVF and 383 to IUI-OS. Because the interventions were unable to blind, two RCTs had a high risk of bias, one had some concerns, and one had a low risk of bias. Considering the time to pregnancy leading to live birth, the cumulative live birth rate was not significantly higher in IVF compared to that in IUI-OS (4 RCTs, 908 women, 50.3% versus 43.2%, hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.81-1.74, I2 = 42.4%). For the safety primary outcome, the rate of multiple pregnancy was not significantly lower in IVF than IUI-OS (3 RCTs, 890 women, 3.8% versus 5.2% of all couples randomized, odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.41-1.50, I2 = 0.0%). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: There is no robust evidence that in couples with unexplained infertility IVF achieves pregnancy leading to live birth faster than IUI-OS. IVF and IUI-OS are both viable options in terms of effectiveness and safety for managing unexplained infertility. The associated costs of interventions and the preference of couples need to be weighed in clinical decision-making.

The needs of subfertile couples continuing to attempt natural conception: in-depth interviews.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the experiences and the support and sexual advice needs of subfertile couples continuing to attempt natural conception after the diagnostic fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: Exploration of the experiences of couples showed that couples would have appreciated fertility clinic staff embedding expectant management into the fertility clinic trajectory, supportive staff with female and male patient interactions and advice on common experiences of peers and on managing their lifestyle, distress and subfertility-related sexual challenges. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Dutch and British professional guidelines advise newly diagnosed subfertile couples with a 'good prognosis' to continue to attempt natural conception and do not require fertility clinic staff to interact with patients. Fertility clinic staff and subfertile couples struggle to follow these guidelines as they feel an urgent need for action. Subfertile couples might benefit from sexual advice, as subfertility is negatively associated with sexual functioning, which is important for natural conception. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Twelve one-time in-depth interviews (2015-2017) were conducted with 10 heterosexual couples and 2 women whose partners did not participate, then the interviews were subjected to inductive content analysis, reaching inductive thematic saturation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The 22 interviewees had experienced 3-18 months of expectant management after their diagnostic fertility work-up in a Belgian or a Dutch tertiary fertility clinic. The face-to-face in-depth interviews explored positive and negative experiences and unmet needs. The transcribed interviews were subjected to inductive content analysis, by two researchers discussing initial disagreements. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Couples would appreciate fertility clinic staff embedding expectant management in the fertility clinic trajectory, by starting off with reassuring couples that their very thorough diagnostic fertility work-up demonstrated their good chance of natural conception, and by involving couples in deciding on the duration of expectant management and by planning the follow-up appointment after expectant management up front. Couples had encountered sexual challenges during expectant management and had an interest in sexual advice, focused on increasing pleasure and partner bonding and preventing the rise of dysfunctions. The couples agreed that a (secured) website with evidence-based, non-patronizing text and mixed media would be an appropriate format for a novel support programme. Couples were keen for interactions with fertility clinic staff which addressed both partners of subfertile couples. Couples also valued advice on managing their lifestyle and distress and would have liked information on the experiences of their peers. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Recall bias is plausible given the retrospective nature of this study. This explorative interview study was not designed for examining country or gender differences in experiences and needs but it did generate new findings on inter-country differences. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Rather than simply advising expectant management, fertility clinics are encouraged to offer couples who continue to attempt natural conception after their diagnostic fertility work-up, supportive patient-staff interactions with advice on common experiences of peers and on managing their lifestyle, distress and sexual challenges related to subfertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Funded by Flanders Research Foundation and the University of Amsterdam. There are no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on infertility patients and endometriosis patients in the Netherlands.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How do infertility patients, endometriosis patients and health-care providers rate virtual care as an alternative to physical consultations during the first lockdown of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the Netherlands, and how does this influence quality of life and quality of care? DESIGN: Infertility patients and endometriosis patients from a university hospital and members of national patient organizations, as well as healthcare providers in infertility and endometriosis care, were asked to participate between May and October 2020. The distributed online questionnaires consisted of an appraisal of virtual care and an assessment of fertility-related quality of life (FertiQol) and patient-centredness of endometriosis care (ENDOCARE). RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 330 infertility patients, 181 endometriosis patients and 101 healthcare providers. Of these, 75.9% of infertility patients, 64.8% of endometriosis patients and 80% of healthcare providers rated telephone consultations as a good alternative to physical consultations during the COVID-19-pandemic. Only 21.3%, 14.8% and 19.2% of the three groups rated telephone consultations as a good replacement for physical consultations in the future. A total of 76.6% and 35.9% of the infertility and endometriosis patients reported increased levels of stress during the pandemic. Infertility patients scored lower on the FertiQol, while the ENDOCARE results care seem comparable to the reference population. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual care seems to be a good alternative for infertility and endometriosis patients in circumstances where physical consultations are not possible. Self-reported stress is especially high in infertility patients during the COVID-19-pandemic. Healthcare providers should aim to improve their patients' ability to cope.

The 'Pleasure&Pregnancy' web-based interactive educational programme versus expectant management in the treatment of unexplained subfertility: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Many subfertile couples are diagnosed with (relatively) unexplained subfertility and a good prognosis. National professional guidelines (eg, the Netherlands and UK) advise 'expectant management (EM)' for 6-12 months, in which no interaction with healthcare staff is offered. Underpowered studies indicate that face-to-face sex-counselling increases the ongoing pregnancy rates of these couples. In patients with other conditions, web-based interactive educational programmes have the same effect on sexual functioning as face-to-face sex counselling. The 'Pleasure&Pregnancy randomised controlled trial (RCT)' will examine in couples with unexplained subfertility and a good prognosis whether a new web-based interactive educational programme results in a higher chance of naturally conceiving an ongoing pregnancy within 6 months as compared with EM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre RCT with cost-effectiveness analysis will include heterosexual couples diagnosed with (relatively) unexplained subfertility and a good prognosis in Dutch and Belgian secondary or tertiary fertility clinics. Couples will be randomised between 6 months of EM and 6 months of the Pleasure&Pregnancy-programme. This new web-based interactive educational programme includes eight progressive modules of information (on the biology of conception and pleasurable sex) and sensate focus, couple communication and mindfulness exercises. Couples are offered interaction with their coaches via email and can take part in three moderated chat sessions with peers. The primary outcome of this RCT is the probability of naturally conceiving an ongoing pregnancy within 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include time-to-pregnancy, live birth rate, costs, sexual functioning and personal and relational well-being. Analysis will be according to intention to treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Committees of the Academic Medical Centre (the Netherlands) and the Leuven University Hospital (Belgium). The findings of this RCT will be disseminated through presentations at international scientific meetings and peer-reviewed publications. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5709; Pre-results.

The effectiveness of intrauterine insemination: A matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of an intrauterine insemination (IUI) program compared to no treatment in subfertile couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective matched cohort study in which ongoing pregnancy rates in 72 couples who voluntarily dropped out of treatment with IUI were compared to ongoing pregnancy rates in 144 couples who continued treatment with IUI. Couples with unexplained subfertility, mild male subfertility or cervical factor subfertility who started treatment with IUI between January 2000 and December 2008 were included. Couples were matched on hospital, age, duration of subfertility, primary or secondary subfertility and diagnosis. Primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate after three years. Time to pregnancy was censored at the moment couples were lost to follow up or when their child wish ended and, for the no-treatment group, when couples re-started treatment. RESULTS: After three years, there were 18 pregnancies in the stopped treatment group (25%) versus 41 pregnancies in the IUI group (28%) (RR 1.1 (0.59-2.2)(p=0.4)). The cumulative pregnancy rate after three years was 40% in both groups, showing no difference in time to ongoing pregnancy (shared frailty model p=0.86). CONCLUSIONS: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, treatment with IUI does not to add to expectant management. There is need for a randomized clinical trial comparing IUI with expectant management in these couples.

Can we identify subfertile couples that benefit from immediate in vitro fertilisation over intrauterine insemination?

OBJECTIVE: Available treatment options in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility are intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF). IUI-COH is a less invasive treatment that is often used before proceeding with IVF. Yet as the IVF success rates might be higher and time to pregnancy shorter, expedited access to IVF might be the preferred option. To identify couples that could benefit from immediate IVF over IUI-COH, we assessed whether female age, duration of subfertility or prewash total motile count (TMC) can help to identify couples that would benefit from IVF over IUI-COH. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a secondary data-analysis of a multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial in three university and six teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. 116 couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility were randomised to one cycle of IVF with elective single embryo transfer with subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfers or 3 cycles of IUI-COH. The primary outcome was an ongoing pregnancy within 4 months after randomisation. Our aim was to explore a possible differential effect of specific markers on the effectiveness of treatment. We chose to therefore assess female age, duration of subfertility and TMC as these have previously been identified as predictors. For each prognostic factor we developed a logistic regression model to predict ongoing pregnancy with that prognostic factor, treatment and a factor-by-treatment interaction term. RESULTS: Female age and duration of subfertility were not associated with better ongoing pregnancy chances after IVF compared to IUI-COH (p-value for interaction=0.65 and 0.26, respectively). Only when TMC was lower than 110 (×10(6)spermatozoa/mL), the probability of ongoing pregnancy was higher in women allocated to IVF (p-value for interaction=0.06). CONCLUSION: In couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility, a low TMC might lead to higher pregnancy rates after IVF than after IUI-COH. This finding needs to be validated in a larger trial before it can be applied in clinical practice.

IVF with planned single-embryo transfer versus IUI with ovarian stimulation in couples with unexplained subfertility: an economic analysis.

Couples with unexplained subfertility are often treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation, which carries the risk of multiple pregnancies. An explorative randomized controlled trial was performed comparing one cycle of IVF with elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) versus three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, to assess the economic burden of the treatment modalities. The main outcome measures were ongoing pregnancy rates and costs. This study randomly assigned 58 couples to IVF-eSET and 58 couples to IUI-ovarian stimulation. The ongoing pregnancy rates were 24% in with IVF-eSET versus 21% with IUI-ovarian stimulation, with two and three multiple pregnancies, respectively. The mean cost per included couple was significantly different: €2781 with IVF-eSET and €1876 with IUI-ovarian stimulation (P<0.01). The additional costs per ongoing pregnancy were €2456 for IVF-eSET. In couples with unexplained subfertility, one cycle of IVF-eSET cost an additional €900 per couple compared with three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation, for no increase in ongoing pregnancy rates or decrease in multiple pregnancies. When IVF-eSET results in higher ongoing pregnancy rates, IVF would be the preferred treatment. Couples that have been trying to conceive unsuccessfully are often treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) and medication to improve egg production (ovarian stimulation). This treatment carries the risk of multiple pregnancies like twins. We performed an explorative study among those couples that had a poor prognosis for natural conception. One cycle of IVF with transfer of one selected embryo (elective single-embryo transfer, eSET) was compared with three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation. The aim of this study was to assess the economic burden of both treatments. The Main outcome measures were number of good pregnancies above 12weeks and costs. We randomly assigned 58 couples to IVF-eSET and 58 couples to IUI-ovarian stimulation. The ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable: 24% with IVF-eSET versus 21% with IUI-ovarian stimulation. There were two multiple pregnancies with IVF-eSET and three multiple pregnancies with IUI-ovarian stimulation. The mean cost per included couple was significantly different, €2781 with IVF-eSET and €1876 with IUI-ovarian stimulation. The additional costs per ongoing pregnancy were €2456 for IVF-eSET. In couples with unexplained subfertility, one cycle of IVF-eSET costed an additional €900 per couple compared to three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation, for no increase in ongoing pregnancy rates or decrease in multiple pregnancies. We conclude that IUI-ovarian stimulation is the preferred treatment to start with. When IVF-eSET results in a higher ongoing pregnancy rate (>38%), IVF would be the preferred treatment.

Couples dropping out of a reimbursed intrauterine insemination program: what is their prognostic profile and why do they drop out?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether baseline characteristics and prognostic profiles differed between couples who drop out from intrauterine insemination (IUI) and couples that continue IUI, and the reasons for couples dropping out from IUI programs. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Fertility centers. PATIENT(S): Consecutive subfertile couples undergoing IUI. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Characteristics and prognosis of ongoing pregnancy after IUI at the start of treatment of couples that dropped out compared with couples that continued treatment or achieved an ongoing pregnancy. RESULT(S): We studied 803 couples who underwent 3,579 IUI cycles of whom 221 couples dropped out (28%). Couples dropping out completed 2.8 (SD ±1.4) cycles per couple compared with 4.5 (SD ±2.3) cycles per couple for those continuing treatment. Couples dropping out had a higher female age, longer subfertility duration, and higher basal FSH. Mean prognosis to achieve an ongoing pregnancy after IUI at start of treatment was 7.9% (SD ±2.4) per cycle for couples who dropped out and 8.5% (SD ±2.5) per cycle for couples continuing treatment. Of the dropouts, 100 couples (45%) were actively censored from the IUI program, 87 couples (39%) because of poor prognosis; 121 couples (55%) were passively censored from the program, of whom 62 (28%) dropped out owing to personal reasons; 59 couples (27%) were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION(S): We found significant differences in prognostic profile between couples continuing treatment and couples dropping out, although these differences seem limited from a clinical perspective. We conclude that overestimation of ongoing pregnancy rates after IUI due to couples dropping out is limited.

Long-term outcome in couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis initially randomized between expectant management and immediate treatment.

BACKGROUND: We recently reported that treatment with intrauterine insemination and controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI-COS) did not increase ongoing pregnancy rates compared with expectant management (EM) in couples with unexplained subfertility and intermediate prognosis of natural conception. Long-term cost-effectiveness of a policy of initial EM is unknown. We investigated whether the recommendation not to treat during the first 6 months is valid, regarding the long-term effectiveness and cumulative costs. METHODS: Couples with unexplained subfertility and intermediate prognosis of natural conception (n=253, at 26 public clinics, the Netherlands) were randomly allocated to 6 months EM or immediate start with IUI-COS. The couples were then treated according to local protocol, usually IUI-COS followed by IVF. We followed couples until 3 years after randomization and registered pregnancies and resources used. Primary outcome was time to ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcome was treatment costs. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Economic evaluation was performed from the perspective of the health care institution. RESULTS: Time to ongoing pregnancy did not differ between groups (log-rank test P=0.98). Cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates were 72-73% for EM and IUI-COS groups, respectively [relative risk 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.1)]. Estimated mean costs per couple were € 3424 (95% CI € 880-€ 5968) in the EM group and € 6040 (95% CI € 4055-€ 8125) in the IUI-COS group resulting in an estimated saving of € 2616 per couple (95% CI € 385-€ 4847) in favour of EM. CONCLUSIONS: In couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis of natural conception, initial EM for 6 months results in a considerable cost-saving with no delay in achieving pregnancy or jeopardizing the chance of pregnancy. Further comparisons between aggressive and milder forms of ovarian stimulation should be performed.

Couples with unexplained subfertility and unfavorable prognosis: a randomized pilot trial comparing the effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with elective single embryo transfer versus intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of IVF with elective single embryo transfer (IVF-eSET) vs. IUI with controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI-COS) as an alternative treatment to reduce the risk for a multiple pregnancy. DESIGN: Randomized pilot trial. SETTING: Three academic and six teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. PATIENT(S): Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavorable prognosis for natural conception. INTERVENTION(S): One cycle of IVF-eSET or three cycles of IUI-COS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Ongoing pregnancy per couple. RESULT(S): We randomly allocated 116 women to IVF-eSET (n = 58) or IUI-COH (n = 58). There were 14 ongoing pregnancies (24%) in the IVF-eSET group and 12 pregnancies (21%) in the IUI-COS group (relative ratio 1.17; 95% confidence interval 0.60-2.30). There were two twin pregnancies in the IVF-eSET group (14%) and two twin pregnancies and one triplet pregnancy in the IUI-COH group (25%). CONCLUSION(S): In patients with unexplained or mild male subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, one cycle of IVF-eSET might be as effective as three cycles of IUI-COS as primary treatment. Elective single embryo transfer does not seem an effective strategy in preventing multiple pregnancies in this particular population. In the future a strict SET policy (i.e., compulsory SET) might be an option. Our trial provides evidence for the feasibility and highlights the importance of a large definitive trial to determine the effectiveness and side effects of both strategies.

Immobilisation versus immediate mobilisation after intrauterine insemination: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of 15 minutes of immobilisation versus immediate mobilisation after intrauterine insemination. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. Setting One academic teaching hospital and six non-academic teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Women having intrauterine insemination for unexplained, cervical factor, or male subfertility. INTERVENTIONS: 15 minutes of immobilisation or immediate mobilisation after insemination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Ongoing pregnancy per couple. RESULTS: 391 couples were randomised; 199 couples were allocated to 15 minutes of immobilisation after intrauterine insemination, and 192 couples were allocated to immediate mobilisation (control). The ongoing pregnancy rate per couple was significantly higher in the immobilisation group than in the control group: 27% (n=54) versus 18% (34); relative risk 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 2.2 (crude difference in ongoing pregnancy rates: 9.4%, 1.2% to 17%). Live birth rates were 27% (53) in the immobilisation group and 17% (32) in the control group: relative risk 1.6, 1.1 to 2.4 (crude difference for live birth rates: 10%, 1.8% to 18%). In the immobilisation group, the ongoing pregnancy rates in the first, second, and third treatment cycles were 10%, 10%, and 7%. The corresponding rates in the mobilisation group were 7%, 5%, and 5%. CONCLUSION: In treatment with intrauterine insemination, 15 minutes' immobilisation after insemination is an effective modification. Immobilisation for 15 minutes should be offered to all women treated with intrauterine insemination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53294431.

Intrauterine insemination: how many cycles should we perform?

BACKGROUND: In the past 20 years, various recommendations have been made about the maximum number of intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles that should be performed, because evidence underpinning a possible limit is lacking. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, retrospective cohort analysis among couples treated with IUI up to nine cycles. Primary outcome measure was ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) per cycle. Cumulative OPRs (COPR) after three, six and nine cycles of IUI were calculated using life-table analysis. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables possibly affecting OPR's. RESULTS: Overall, 3714 couples with male, cervical or unexplained subfertility underwent 15,303 cycles of IUI. In 70% of cycles, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) was used (51% clomiphene-citrate, 19% gonadotropins). Mean OPR rate was 5.6% per cycle. OPR in the seventh, eighth and ninth cycle were 5.1%, 6.7% and 4.6%, respectively. Taking censored patients into account, the calculated COPR was 18% after the third cycle, 30% after the seventh cycle and 41% after the ninth cycle. If censored patients were considered to have no chance of conception, a crude COPR of 25% after nine cycles was found. Multivariable regression analysis showed no significant impact of age, type of subfertility, diagnosis, use of hyperstimulation or cycle number on OPR after the sixth treatment cycle. CONCLUSIONS: OPR in high-order IUI cycles are acceptable, and do not offer a rationale for cancellation before nine cycles. Using this type of very mild COH, it may be reasonable to conduct up to nine cycles.

External validation of a prediction model for an ongoing pregnancy after intrauterine insemination.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of our recently developed prediction model in a prospective validation study to predict the outcome of intrauterine insemination (IUI). DESIGN: Descriptive prospective validation study. SETTING: Seven fertility centers in the Netherlands. PATIENT(S): Couples treated with IUI of whom the female partner had a regular cycle. INTERVENTION(S): Intrauterine insemination with or without controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Ongoing pregnancy after intrauterine insemination. Performance of the prediction model was assessed with calibration and discriminative capacity. Calibration was assessed by comparing the predicted ongoing pregnancy rate with the observed ongoing pregnancy rate. Discriminative capacity was assessed with receiver operation characteristic (ROC) analysis. For daily practice, a score worksheet of the validated model was developed to estimate the chance of an ongoing pregnancy after IUI per treatment cycle. RESULT(S): We included 1,079 subfertile couples who underwent 4,244 cycles of IUI. There were 278 ongoing pregnancies, that is, an ongoing pregnancy rate of 6.6% per cycle. External validation of the model showed good calibration. The predicted probability never differed by more than 1.5% of the mean observed probability. The area under the ROC curve was 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.59) at external validation. CONCLUSION(S): The prediction model was able to make a good distinction between couples with a good pregnancy chance and those with a poor pregnancy chance after IUI. This model can help in deciding which couples will benefit from IUI and which couples will not.