Clinical outcomes of uninterrupted embryo culture with or without time-lapse-based embryo selection versus interrupted standard culture (SelecTIMO): a three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Time-lapse monitoring is increasingly used in fertility laboratories to culture and select embryos for transfer. This method is offered to couples with the promise of improving pregnancy chances, even though there is currently insufficient evidence for superior clinical results. We aimed to evaluate whether a potential improvement by time-lapse monitoring is caused by the time-lapse-based embryo selection method itself or the uninterrupted culture environment that is part of the system. METHODS: In this three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection were recruited from 15 fertility clinics in the Netherlands and randomly assigned using a web-based, computerised randomisation service to one of three groups. Couples and physicians were masked to treatment group, but embryologists and laboratory technicians could not be. The time-lapse early embryo viability assessment (EEVA; TLE) group received embryo selection based on the EEVA time-lapse selection method and uninterrupted culture. The time-lapse routine (TLR) group received routine embryo selection and uninterrupted culture. The control group received routine embryo selection and interrupted culture. The co-primary endpoints were the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate within 12 months in all women and the ongoing pregnancy rate after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered on the ICTRP Search Portal, NTR5423, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: 1731 couples were randomly assigned between June 15, 2017, and March 31, 2020 (577 to the TLE group, 579 to the TLR group, and 575 to the control group). The 12-month cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between the three groups: 50·8% (293 of 577) in the TLE group, 50·9% (295 of 579) in the TLR group, and 49·4% (284 of 575) in the control group (p=0·85). The ongoing pregnancy rates after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population were 38·2% (125 of 327) in the TLE group, 36·8% (119 of 323) in the TLR group, and 37·8% (123 of 325) in the control group (p=0·90). Ten serious adverse events were reported (five TLE, four TLR, and one in the control group), which were not related to study procedures. INTERPRETATION: Neither time-lapse-based embryo selection using the EEVA test nor uninterrupted culture conditions in a time-lapse incubator improved clinical outcomes compared with routine methods. Widespread application of time-lapse monitoring for fertility treatments with the promise of improved results should be questioned. FUNDING: Health Care Efficiency Research programme from Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Merck.

Gonadotrophins or clomiphene citrate in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure: does the endometrium matter?

STUDY QUESTION: Is endometrial thickness (EMT) a biomarker to select between women who should switch to gonadotropins and those who could continue clomiphene citrate (CC) after six failed ovulatory cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: Using a cut-off of 7 mm for EMT, we can distinguish between women who are better off switching to gonadotropins and those who could continue CC after six earlier failed ovulatory CC cycles. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: For women with normogonadotropic anovulation, CC has been a long-standing first-line treatment in conjunction with intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). We recently showed that a switch to gonadotropins increases the chance of live birth by 11% in these women over continued treatment with CC after six failed ovulatory cycles, at a cost of €15 258 per additional live birth. It is unclear whether EMT can be used to identify women who can continue on CC with similar live birth rates without the extra costs of gonadotropins. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between 8 December 2008 and 16 December 2015, 666 women with CC failure were randomly assigned to receive an additional six cycles with a change to gonadotropins (n = 331) or an additional six cycles continuing with CC (n = 335), both in conjunction with intercourse or IUI. The primary outcome was conception leading to live birth within 8 months after randomisation. EMT was measured mid-cycle before randomisation during their sixth ovulatory CC cycle. The EMT was available in 380 women, of whom 190 were allocated to gonadotropins and 190 were allocated to CC. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: EMT was determined in the sixth CC cycle prior to randomisation. We tested for interaction of EMT with the treatment effect using logistic regression. We performed a spline analysis to evaluate the association of EMT with chance to pregnancy leading to a live birth in the next cycles and to determine the best cut-off point. On the basis of the resulting cut-off point, we calculated the relative risk and 95% CI of live birth for gonadotropins versus CC at EMT values below and above this cut-off point. Finally, we calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Mid-cycle EMT in the sixth cycle interacted with treatment effect (P < 0.01). Spline analyses showed a cut-off point of 7 mm. There were 162 women (45%) who had an EMT ≤ 7 mm in the sixth ovulatory cycle and 218 women (55%) who had an EMT > 7 mm. Among the women with EMT ≤ 7 mm, gonadotropins resulted in a live birth in 44 of 79 women (56%), while CC resulted in a live birth in 28 of 83 women (34%) (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.13-2.19). Per additional live birth with gonadotropins, the ICER was €9709 (95% CI: €5117 to €25 302). Among the women with EMT > 7 mm, gonadotropins resulted in a live birth in 53 of 111 women (48%) while CC resulted in a live birth in 52 of 107 women (49%) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75-1.29). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a post hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and therefore mid-cycle EMT measurements before randomisation during their sixth ovulatory CC cycle were not available for all included women. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In women with six failed ovulatory cycles on CC and an EMT ≤ 7 mm in the sixth cycle, we advise switching to gonadotropins, since it improves live birth rate over continuing treatment with CC at an extra cost of €9709 to achieve one additional live birth. If the EMT > 7 mm, we advise to continue treatment with CC, since live birth rates are similar to those with gonadotropins, without the extra costs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original MOVIN trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). C.B.L.A. reports unrestricted grant support from Merck and Ferring. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva, IGENOMIX and Guerbet. All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449.

The vaginal microbiome as a predictor for outcome of in vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective study.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the presence or absence of certain vaginal bacteria associated with failure or success to become pregnant after an in vitro fertilization (IVF) or IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: Microbiome profiling with the use of interspace profiling (IS-pro) technique enables stratification of the chance of becoming pregnant prior to the start of an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Live-birth rates for an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment vary between 25 and 35% per cycle and it is difficult to predict who will or will not get pregnant after embryo transfer (ET). Recently, it was suggested that the composition of the vaginal microbiota prior to treatment might predict pregnancy outcome. Analysis of the vaginal microbiome prior to treatment might, therefore, offer an opportunity to improve the success rate of IVF or IVF-ICSI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In a prospective cohort study, 303 women (age, 20-42 years) undergoing IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment in the Netherlands were included between June 2015 and March 2016. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Study subjects provided a vaginal sample before the start of the IVF or IVF-ICSI procedure. The vaginal microbiota composition was determined using the IS-pro technique. IS-pro is a eubacterial technique based on the detection and categorization of the length of the 16S-23S rRNA gene interspace region. Microbiome profiles were assigned to community state types based on the dominant bacterial species. The predictive accuracy of the microbiome profiles for IVF and IVF-ICSI outcome of fresh ET was evaluated by a combined prediction model based on a small number of bacterial species. From this cohort, a model was built to predict outcome of fertility treatment. This model was externally validated in a cohort of 50 women who were undergoing IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment between March 2018 and May 2018 in the Dutch division of the MVZ VivaNeo Kinderwunschzentrum Düsseldorf, Germany. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, the vaginal microbiota of 192 women who underwent a fresh ET could be analysed. Women with a low percentage of Lactobacillus in their vaginal sample were less likely to have a successful embryo implantation. The prediction model identified a subgroup of women (17.7%, n = 34) who had a low chance to become pregnant following fresh ET. This failure was correctly predicted in 32 out of 34 women based on the vaginal microbiota composition, resulting in a predictive accuracy of 94% (sensitivity, 26%; specificity, 97%). Additionally, the degree of dominance of Lactobacillus crispatus was an important factor in predicting pregnancy. Women who had a favourable profile as well as <60% L. crispatus had a high chance of pregnancy: more than half of these women (50 out of 95) became pregnant. In the external validation cohort, none of the women who had a negative prediction (low chance of pregnancy) became pregnant. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Because our study uses a well-defined study population, the results will be limited to the IVF or IVF-ICSI population. Whether these results can be extrapolated to the general population trying to achieve pregnancy without ART cannot be determined from these data. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results indicate that vaginal microbiome profiling using the IS-pro technique enables stratification of the chance of becoming pregnant prior to the start of an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. Knowledge of their vaginal microbiota may enable couples to make a more balanced decision regarding timing and continuation of their IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment cycles. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was financed by NGI Pre-Seed 2014-2016, RedMedTech Discovery Fund 2014-2017, STW Valorisation grant 1 2014-2015, STW Take-off early phase trajectory 2015-2016 and Eurostars VALBIOME grant (reference number: 8884). The employer of W.J.S.S.C. has in collaboration with ARTPred acquired a MIND subsidy to cover part of the costs of this collaboration project. The following grants are received but not used to finance this study: grants from Innovatie Prestatie Contract, MIT Haalbaarheid, other from Dutch R&D tax credit WBSO, RedMedTech Discovery Fund, (J.D.d.J.). Grants from Ferring (J.S.E.L., K.F., C.B.L. and J.M.J.S.S.), Merck Serono (K.F. and C.B.L.), Dutch Heart Foundation (J.S.E.L.), Metagenics Inc. (J.S.E.L.), GoodLife (K.F.), Guerbet (C.B.L.). R.K. is employed by ARTPred B.V. during her PhD at Erasmus Medical Centre (MC). S.A.M. has a 100% University appointment. I.S.P.H.M.S., S.A.M. and A.E.B. are co-owners of IS-Diagnostics Ltd. J.D.d.J. is co-owner of ARTPred B.V., from which he reports personal fees. P.H.M.S. reports non-financial support from ARTPred B.V. P.H.M.S., J.D.d.J. and A.E.B. have obtained patents `Microbial population analysis' (9506109) and `Microbial population analysis' (20170159108), both licenced to ARTPred B.V. J.D.d.J. and A.E.B. report patent applications `Method and kit for predicting the outcome of an assisted reproductive technology procedure' (392EPP0) and patent `Method and kit for altering the outcome of an assisted reproductive technology procedure' by ARTPred. W.J.S.S.C. received personal consultancy and educational fees from Goodlife Fertility B.V. J.S.E.L. reports personal consultancy fees from ARTPred B.V., Titus Health B.V., Danone, Euroscreen and Roche during the conduct of the study. J.S.E.L. and N.G.M.B. are co-applicants on an Erasmus MC patent (New method and kit for prediction success of in vitro fertilization) licenced to ARTPred B.V. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees from Advisory Board Ferring, Advisory Board Merck Serono, Advisory Board Gedeon Richter and personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring, outside the submitted work. K.F. reports personal fees from Ferring (commercial sponsor) and personal fees from GoodLife (commercial sponsor). C.B.L. received speakers' fee from Ferring. J.M.J.S.S. reports personal fees and other from Merck Serono and personal fees from Ferring, unrelated to the submitted paper. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN83157250. Registered 17 August 2018. Retrospectively registered.

Follicle stimulating hormone versus clomiphene citrate in intrauterine insemination for unexplained subfertility: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is FSH or clomiphene citrate (CC) the most effective stimulation regimen in terms of ongoing pregnancies in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria as a measure to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies? SUMMARY ANSWER: In IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, ovarian stimulation with FSH is not superior to CC in terms of the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate, and yields a similar, low multiple pregnancy rate. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: FSH has been shown to result in higher pregnancy rates compared to CC, but at the cost of high multiple pregnancy rates. To reduce the risk of multiple pregnancy, new ovarian stimulation regimens have been suggested, these include strict cancellation criteria to limit the number of dominant follicles per cycle i.e. withholding insemination when more than three dominant follicles develop. With such a strategy, it is unclear whether the ovarian stimulation should be done with FSH or with CC. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an open-label multicenter randomized superiority controlled trial in the Netherlands (NTR 4057). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We randomized couples diagnosed with unexplained subfertility and scheduled for a maximum of four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation with 75 IU FSH or 100 mg CC. Cycles were cancelled when more then three dominant follicles developed. The primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate. Multiple pregnancy was a secondary outcome. We analysed the data on intention to treat basis. We calculated relative risks and absolute risk difference with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between July 2013 and March 2016, we allocated 369 women to ovarian stimulation with FSH and 369 women to ovarian stimulation with CC. A total of 113 women (31%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and 97 women (26%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.93-1.47, ARD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.11). Five women (1.4%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and eight women (2.2%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.21-1.89, ARD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We were not able to blind this study due to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We revealed that adherence to strict cancellation criteria is a successful solution to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies in IUI. To decide whether ovarian stimulation with FSH or with CC should be the regimen of choice, costs and patients' preferences should be taken into account. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Prof. Dr B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Nederlands Trial Register NTR4057. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 1 July 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: The first patient was randomized at 27 August 2013.

Does endometrial scratching increase the rate of spontaneous conception in couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis (Hunault > 30%)? Study protocol of the SCRaTCH-OFO trial: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis to conceive spontaneously (i.e. Hunault > 30%) are advised to perform timed intercourse for at least another 6 months. If couples fail to conceive within this period, they will usually start assisted reproductive technology (ART). However, treatment of unexplained infertility by ART is empirical and can involve significant burdens. Intentional endometrial injury, also called 'endometrial scratching', has been proposed to positively affect the chance of embryo implantation in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). It might also be beneficial for couples with unexplained infertility as defective endometrial receptivity may play a role in these women. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether endometrial scratching increases live birth rates in women with unexplained infertility. METHOD: A multicentre randomized controlled trial will be conducted in Dutch academic and non-academic hospitals starting from November 2017. A total of 792 women with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis for spontaneous conception < 12 months (Hunault > 30%) will be included, of whom half will undergo endometrial scratching in the luteal phase of the natural cycle. The women in the control group will not undergo endometrial scratching. According to Dutch guidelines, both groups will subsequently perform timed intercourse for at least 6 months. The primary endpoint is cumulative live birth rate. Secondary endpoints are clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate; miscarriage rate; biochemical pregnancy loss; multiple pregnancy rate; time to pregnancy; progression to intrauterine insemination (IUI) or IVF; pregnancy complications; complications of endometrial scratching; costs and endometrial tissue parameters associated with reproductive success or failure. The follow-up duration is 12 months. DISCUSSION: Several small studies show a possible beneficial effect of endometrial scratching in women with unexplained infertility trying to conceive naturally or through IUI. However, the quality of this evidence is very low, making it unclear whether these women will truly benefit from this procedure. The SCRaTCH-OFO trial aims to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching on live birth rate in women with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis for spontaneous conception < 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR6687 , registered August 31st, 2017. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 2.6, November 14th, 2018.

Endometrial scratching in women with implantation failure after a first IVF/ICSI cycle; does it lead to a higher live birth rate? The SCRaTCH study: a randomized controlled trial (NTR 5342).

BACKGROUND: Success rates of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) are approximately 30%, with the most important limiting factor being embryo implantation. Mechanical endometrial injury, also called 'scratching', has been proposed to positively affect the chance of implantation after embryo transfer, but the currently available evidence is not yet conclusive. The primary aim of this study is to determine the effect of endometrial scratching prior to a second fresh in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycle on live birth rates in women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle. METHOD: Multicenter randomized controlled trial in Dutch academic and non-academic hospitals. A total of 900 women will be included of whom half will undergo an endometrial scratch in the luteal phase of the cycle prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using an endometrial biopsy catheter. The primary endpoint is the live birth rate after the 2nd fresh IVF/ICSI cycle. Secondary endpoints are costs, cumulative live birth rate (after the full 2nd IVF/ICSI cycle and over 12 months of follow-up); clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate; multiple pregnancy rate; miscarriage rate and endometrial tissue parameters associated with implantation failure. DISCUSSION: Multiple studies have been performed to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching on live birth rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles. Due to heterogeneity in both the method and population being scratched, it remains unclear which group of women will benefit from the procedure. The SCRaTCH trial proposed here aims to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a large group of women undergoing a second IVF/ICSI cycle. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR 5342 , registered July 31st, 2015. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 4.10, January 4th, 2017.

A randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial of modified natural versus artificial cycle for cryo-thawed embryo transfer.

STUDY QUESTION: Are live birth rates (LBRs) after artificial cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (AC-FET) non-inferior to LBRs after modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (mNC-FET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: AC-FET is non-inferior to mNC-FET with regard to LBRs, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) but AC-FET does result in higher cancellation rates. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: Pooling prior retrospective studies of AC-FET and mNC-FET results in comparable pregnancy and LBRs. However, these results have not yet been confirmed by a prospective randomized trial. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: In this non-inferiority prospective randomized controlled trial (acronym 'ANTARCTICA' trial), conducted from February 2009 to April 2014, 1032 patients were included of which 959 were available for analysis. The primary outcome of the study was live birth. Secondary outcomes were clinical and ongoing pregnancy, cycle cancellation and endometrium thickness. A cost-efficiency analysis was performed. PARTICIPANT/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: This study was conducted in both secondary and tertiary fertility centres in the Netherlands. Patients included in this study had to be 18-40 years old, had to have a regular menstruation cycle between 26 and 35 days and frozen-thawed embryos to be transferred had to derive from one of the first three IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment cycles. Patients with a uterine anomaly, a contraindication for one of the prescribed medications in this study or patients undergoing a donor gamete procedure were excluded from participation. Patients were randomized based on a 1:1 allocation to either one cycle of mNC-FET or AC-FET. All embryos were cryopreserved using a slow-freeze technique. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: LBR after mNC-FET was 11.5% (57/495) versus 8.8% in AC-FET (41/464) resulting in an absolute difference in LBR of -0.027 in favour of mNC-FET (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.065-0.012; P = 0.171). Clinical pregnancy occurred in 94/495 (19.0%) patients in mNC-FET versus 75/464 (16.0%) patients in AC-FET (odds ratio (OR) 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.1, P = 0.25). 57/495 (11.5%) mNC-FET resulted in ongoing pregnancy versus 45/464 (9.6%) AC-FET (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.1, P = 0.15). χ(2) test confirmed the lack of superiority. Significantly more cycles were cancelled in AC-FET (124/464 versus 101/495, OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, P = 0.02). The costs of each of the endometrial preparation methods were comparable (€617.50 per cycle in NC-FET versus €625.73 per cycle in AC-FET, P = 0.54). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The minimum of 1150 patients required for adequate statistical power was not achieved. Moreover, LBRs were lower than anticipated in the sample size calculation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: LBRs after AC-FET were not inferior to those achieved by mNC-FET. No significant differences in clinical and OPR were observed. The costs of both treatment approaches were comparable. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: An educational grant was received during the conduct of this study. Merck Sharpe Dohme had no influence on the design, execution and analyses of this study. E.R.G. received an education grant by Merck Sharpe Dohme (MSD) during the conduct of the present study. B.J.C. reports grants from MSD during the conduct of the study. A.H. reports grants from MSD and Ferring BV the Netherlands and personal fees from MSD. Grants from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development. J.S.E.L. reports grants from Ferring, MSD, Organon, Merck Serono and Schering-Plough during the conduct of the study. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, consultancy work for Gedeon Richter, educational activities for Ferring BV, research cooperation with Ansh Labs and a strategic cooperation with Roche on automated anti Mullerian hormone assay development. N.S.M. reports receiving monetary compensations for external advisory and speaking work for Ferring BV, MSD, Anecova and Merck Serono during the conduct of the study. All reported competing interests are outside the submitted work. No other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands trial register, number NTR 1586. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 13 January 2009. FIRST PATIENT INCLUDED: 20 April 2009.

Is IVF-served two different ways-more cost-effective than IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?. SUMMARY ANSWER: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were €7187 for IVF-SET, €8206 for IVF-MNC and €5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences €2117; 95% CI: €1544-€2657 and €3136, 95% CI: €2519-€3754, respectively).The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was €43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, (120620027) and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Netherlands' association of health care insurers (09-003). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Comparison of early versus late initiation of GnRH antagonist co-treatment for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the impact of initiating GnRH antagonist co-treatment for in vitro fertilization (IVF) on cycle day (CD) 2 compared with CD 6 on live birth rate (LBR) per started cycle and on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not appear to improve clinical outcomes of IVF compared with midfollicular initiation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: During ovarian stimulation for IVF, GnRH antagonist co-treatment is usually administered from the midfollicular phase onwards. Earlier initiation may improve the follicular phase hormonal milieu and therefore overall clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This open-label, multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between September 2009 and July 2011. A web-based program was used for randomization and 617 IVF-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) patients were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Recombinant FSH (150-225 IU) was administered daily from CD 2 onwards in both groups. The study group (CD2; n = 308) started GnRH antagonist co-treatment on CD 2, whereas the control group (CD6; n = 309) started on CD 6. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups. A non-significant trend towards a higher LBR per started cycle and CLBR was observed in the CD6 group compared with the CD2 group (LBR: 24.0 versus 21.5%, P = 0.5; CLBR: 29.9 versus 26.7%, P = 0.6). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was terminated prematurely because no significant difference was observed in clinical outcomes after 617 inclusions. A much larger study population would be needed to detect a small significant difference in favour of either study arm, which raises the question of whether this would be relevant for clinical practice. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The present study shows that the additional treatment burden and costs of starting GnRH antagonist on CD 2 instead of on CD 6 are not justified, as early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not improve LBRs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was partially supported by a grant from Merck Serono. O.H., M.J.C.E, A.V., P.A.D., R.E.B., G.J.E.O., C.A.G.H., G.C.D.M., H.J.V., P.F.M.H. and A.B. have nothing to declare. F.J.B. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, MSD and Roche. B.J.C. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. C.B.L has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Auxogen, Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. B.C.J.M.F. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Andromed, Ardana, Ferring, Genovum, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem, Schering, Schering Plough, Serono and Wyeth. J.S.E.L. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gennovum, MSD, Merck Serono, Organon, Schering Plough and Serono. N.S.M. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Anecova, Ferring, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon and Serono. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: www.clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT00866034.

Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries versus ovulation induction with recombinant FSH in clomiphene citrate-resistant women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries and ovulation induction with gonadotrophins are both second line treatments for women with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Long-term follow-up after electrocautery versus ovulation induction with gonadotrophins has demonstrated at least comparable chances for a first live born child with a reduced need for ovulation induction or assisted reproduction treatment and increased chances for a second live born child. In this study, we report on the long-term economic consequences of both treatment modalities. METHODS: Between February 1998 and October 2001, we performed a multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing a strategy of laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries, followed by clomiphene citrate and gonadotrophins when anovulation persisted, and a strategy of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins in women with clomiphene citrate-resistant PCOS. Eight to twelve years after randomization we performed a follow-up study on reproductive outcome in these women and the fertility treatments they had needed including data on direct medical costs of pregnancy and delivery. Clinical data included number of treatment cycles, live births, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and multiple pregnancies. We calculated mean costs per woman after randomization until the first live birth. Confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by bootstrapping. RESULTS: We obtained data for an economic analysis on 159 of the 168 randomized women (95%). In total, 71 of 83 women (86%) allocated to the electrocautery strategy and 69 of 85 women (81%) allocated to the gonadotrophin strategy had at least one live birth. Given the equivalence between the two treatment strategies in terms of a first live birth-the primary outcome measure-our analysis focused on the cost difference between the two strategies within a mean follow-up time of 8-12 years. The mean costs per first live birth after randomization were €11 176 (95% CI: €9689-€12 549) for the electrocautery group and €14 423 (95% CI: €12 239-€16 606) for the recombinant FSH group, resulting in significantly lower costs (P < 0.05) per first live birth for women allocated to the electrocautery group (mean difference €3247; 95% CI: €650-€5814). CONCLUSION: In women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS, laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries results in significantly lower costs per live birth than ovulation induction with gonadotrophins for an at least equal effectiveness.

Spontaneous LH surges prior to HCG administration in unstimulated-cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer do not influence pregnancy rates.

LH surges are the start of a period of optimal endometrial receptivity. Missing these surges in an unstimulated-cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) based on ultrasound alone might lead to incorrect timing of embryo transfer. This prospective, non-randomized trial established the incidence and effect of spontaneous LH surges on ongoing pregnancy rates and assessed the use of ultrasound without LH monitoring in planning FET. All patients undergoing unstimulated-cycle FET in the study centre over a 2-year period were included in this analysis (n=233). All patients had regular menstrual cycles. Serum LH analysis took place before human chorionic gonadotrophin administration. The main outcome measure was ongoing pregnancy. LH surges occurred in over half of patients. Overall pregnancy rate was 34.3%. Relative risks for ongoing pregnancy for cycles with or without a spontaneous LH surge were not significantly different (ongoing pregnancy rate 33.4% versus 34.8%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.7-1.5). Based on these results, it was concluded that LH surges ≥10 IU/l occurred in over 50% of patients, but LH surges demonstrated no significant effect on pregnancy rates. Single LH determination prior to ovulation induction in unstimulated-cycle FET does not seem to have added clinical value.

Ovarian stimulation strategies for intrauterine insemination in couples with unexplained infertility: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) is a first-line treatment for unexplained infertility. Gonadotrophins, letrozole and clomiphene citrate (CC) are commonly used agents during IUI-OS and have been compared in multiple aggregate data meta-analyses, with substantial heterogeneity and no analysis on time-to-event outcomes. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is considered the gold standard for evidence synthesis as it can offset inadequate reporting of individual studies by obtaining the IPD, and allows analyses on treatment-covariate interactions to identify couples who benefit most from a particular treatment. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We performed this IPD-MA to compare the effectiveness and safety of ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC and to explore treatment-covariate interactions for important baseline characteristics in couples undergoing IUI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from their inception to 28 June 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI-OS with gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC among couples with unexplained infertility. We contacted the authors of eligible RCTs to share the IPD and established the IUI IPD-MA Collaboration. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were other reproductive outcomes, including time to conception leading to live birth. We performed a one-stage random effects IPD-MA. OUTCOMES: Seven of 22 (31.8%) eligible RCTs provided IPD of 2495 couples (62.4% of the 3997 couples participating in 22 RCTs), of which 2411 had unexplained infertility and were included in this IPD-MA. Six RCTs (n = 1511) compared gonadotrophins with CC, and one (n = 900) compared gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins increased the live birth rate compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.51, I2 = 26%). Low-certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins may also increase the multiple pregnancy rate compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.33-3.54, I2 = 69%). Heterogeneity on multiple pregnancy could be explained by differences in gonadotrophin starting dose and choice of cancellation criteria. Post-hoc sensitivity analysis on RCTs with a low starting dose of gonadotrophins (≤75 IU) confirmed increased live birth rates compared to CC (5 RCTs, 1457 women, RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.51), but analysis on only RCTs with stricter cancellation criteria showed inconclusive evidence on live birth (4 RCTs, 1238 women, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94-1.41). For multiple pregnancy, both sensitivity analyses showed inconclusive findings between gonadotrophins and CC (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.45-1.96; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.32-2.03, respectively). Moderate certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins reduced the time to conception leading to a live birth when compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.63, I2 = 22%). No strong evidence on the treatment-covariate (female age, BMI or primary versus secondary infertility) interactions was found. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: In couples with unexplained infertility undergoing IUI-OS, gonadotrophins increased the chance of a live birth and reduced the time to conception compared to CC, at the cost of a higher multiple pregnancy rate, when not differentiating strategies on cancellation criteria or the starting dose. The treatment effects did not seem to differ in women of different age, BMI or primary versus secondary infertility. In a modern practice where a lower starting dose and stricter cancellation criteria are in place, effectiveness and safety of different agents seem both acceptable, and therefore intervention availability, cost and patients' preferences should factor in the clinical decision-making. As the evidence for comparisons to letrozole is based on one RCT providing IPD, further RCTs comparing letrozole and other interventions for unexplained infertility are needed.

The addition of GnRH antagonists in intrauterine insemination cycles with mild ovarian hyperstimulation does not increase live birth rates--a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This multicenter, double-blinded RCT investigated the efficacy of GnRH antagonists in cycles with mild ovarian hyperstimulation (MOH) followed by IUI in subfertile women. METHODS: Couples diagnosed with unexplained, male factor subfertility or associated with the presence of minimal or mild endometriosis were randomized with a computer-generated list of numbers by a third party in a double-blinded setting to receive either a GnRH antagonists or a placebo in 12 institutional or academic hospitals. All women were treated with recombinant FSH in a low-dose step-up regimen starting on Day 2-4 of the cycle. A GnRH antagonist was added when one or more follicles of 14 mm diameter or more were visualized. When at least one follicle reached a size of ≥18 mm, ovulation was induced by hCG injection. A single IUI was performed 38-40 h later. Couples were offered a maximum of three consecutive cycles. The primary outcome of the trial was live births. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy rates, multiple pregnancy rates, miscarriages and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate. RESULTS: A total of 233 couples were included from January 2006 to February 2009, starting 572 treatment cycles. Live birth rates were not significantly different between the group treated with GnRH antagonist (8.4%; 23/275) and the placebo group (12%; 36/297) (P = 0.30). Three twin pregnancies occurred in the GnRH antagonist group and two twin pregnancies in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a GnRH antagonist in cycles with MOH in an IUI program does not increase live birth rates. Dutch Trial Register no: NTR497.

Risk of borderline and invasive ovarian tumours after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization in a large Dutch cohort.

BACKGROUND: Long-term effects of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the risk of ovarian malignancies are unknown. METHODS: We identified a nationwide historic cohort of 19,146 women who received IVF treatment in the Netherlands between 1983 and 1995, and a comparison group of 6006 subfertile women not treated with IVF. In 1997-1999, data on reproductive risk factors were obtained from 65% of women and data on subfertility (treatment) were obtained from the medical records. The incidence of ovarian malignancies (including borderline ovarian tumours) through 2007 was assessed through linkage with disease registries. The risk of ovarian malignancies in the IVF group was compared with risks in the general population and the subfertile comparison group. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 14.7 years, the risk of borderline ovarian tumours was increased in the IVF group compared with the general population [standardized incidence ratio (SIR) = 1.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.16-2.56]. The overall SIR for invasive ovarian cancer was not significantly elevated, but increased with longer follow-up after first IVF (P = 0.02); the SIR was 3.54 (95% CI = 1.62-6.72) after 15 years. The risks of borderline ovarian tumours and of all ovarian malignancies combined in the IVF group were significantly increased compared with risks in the subfertile comparison group (hazard ratios = 4.23; 95% CI = 1.25-14.33 and 2.14; 95% CI = 1.07-4.25, respectively, adjusted for age, parity and subfertility cause). CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian stimulation for IVF may increase the risk of ovarian malignancies, especially borderline ovarian tumours. More large cohort studies are needed to confirm these findings and to examine the effect of IVF treatment characteristics.

Is home-based monitoring of ovulation to time frozen embryo transfer a cost-effective alternative for hospital-based monitoring of ovulation? Study protocol of the multicentre, non-inferiority Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: The objective of this trial is to compare the effectiveness and costs of true natural cycle (true NC-) frozen embryo transfer (FET) using urinary LH tests to modified NC-FET using repeated ultrasound monitoring and ovulation trigger to time FET in the NC. Secondary outcomes are the cancellation rates of FET (ovulation before hCG or no dominant follicle, no ovulation by LH urine test, poor embryo survival), pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage rate, clinical pregnancy rates, multiple ongoing pregnancy rates, live birth rates, costs) and neonatal outcomes (including gestational age, birthweight and sex, congenital abnormalities or diseases of babies born). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: FET is at the heart of modern IVF. To allow implantation of the thawed embryo, the endometrium must be prepared either by exogenous oestrogen and progesterone supplementation (artificial cycle (AC)-FET) or by using the NC to produce endogenous oestradiol before and progesterone after ovulation to time the transfer of the thawed embryo (NC-FET). During an NC-FET, women visit the hospital repeatedly and receive an ovulation trigger to time FET (i.e. modified (m)NC-FET or hospital-based monitoring). From the woman's point of view, a more natural approach using home-based monitoring of the ovulation with LH urine tests to allow a natural ovulation to time FET may be desired (true NC-FET or home-based monitoring). STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is a multicentre, non-inferiority prospective randomised controlled trial design. Consenting women will undergo one FET cycle using either true NC-FET or mNC-FET based on randomisation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Based on our sample size calculation, the study group will consist of 1464 women between 18 and 45 years old who are scheduled for FET. Women with anovulatory cycles, women who need ovulation induction and women with a contra indication for pregnancy will be excluded. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes are cancellation rates of FET, pregnancy outcomes (including miscarriage rate, clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy rate and live birth rate). Costs will be estimated by counting resource use and calculating unit prices. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study received a grant from the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 843002807; www.zonmw.nl). ZonMw has no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or writing of the manuscript. F.B. reports personal fees from member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. A.E.P.C. reports and Unrestricted grant of Ferring B.V. to the Center for Reproductive medicine, no personal fee. Author up-to-date on Hyperthecosis. Congress meetings 2019 with Ferring B.V. and Theramex B.V. M.G. reports Department research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring (location VUMC) outside the submitted work. E.R.G. reports personal fees from Titus Health Care, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors have none to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (Trial NL6414 (NTR6590), https://www.trialregister.nl/). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 23 July 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 April 2018.

Should luteal phase support be introduced in ovarian stimulation/IUI programmes? An evidence-based review.

World-wide, intrauterine insemination (IUI) is still one of the most applied techniques to enhance the probability of conception in couples with longstanding subfertility. The outcome of this treatment option depends on many confounding factors. One of the confounding factors receiving little attention is the quality of the luteal phase. From IVF studies, it is known that ovarian stimulation causes luteal phase deficiency. Based on the best available evidence, this short review summarizes the indications for mild ovarian stimulation combined with IUI and the optimal stimulation programme. While it has been established that stimulated IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles have deficient luteal phases, the question remains whether the quality of the luteal phase when only two or three corpora lutea are present (as is the case in stimulated IUI cycles) is impaired as well. There are too few large non-IVF trials studying luteal phase quality to answer this question. Recently a randomized trial has been published that investigated luteal phase support in an IUI programme. This study is discussed in detail. It is recommended to apply luteal phase support in stimulated IUI cycles only when proven costeffective. Further trials are mandatory to investigate both endometrial and hormonal profile changes in the luteal phase after mild ovarian stimulation, and the cost-effectiveness of luteal support in IUI programmes.

[Ten years of results of in-vitro fertilisation in the Netherlands 1996-2005]. / Tien jaar resultaten van in-vitrofertilisatie in Nederland, 1996-2005.

OBJECTIVE: To present the numbers and results of Dutch IVF treatment from 1996-2005 and to describe trends and differences between centres. DESIGN: Retrospective data-collection, description and analysis. METHOD: The annual statistics from all Dutch IVF centres covering the years 1996-2005 were collected, described and analysed. RESULTS: During this period 138,217 IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles were started and 14,881 transfers of frozen-thawed embryos (cryo transfers) were performed. The number of ICSI treatments, in particular, increased to more than 6000 cycles during this period. These treatments resulted in 30,488 ongoing pregnancies (22.1% per cycle started; 19.1% for IVF and 23.4% for ICSI). The ongoing pregnancy rate per cycle increased from 17.6% in 1996 to 24.4% in 2005. The increase after cryo transfers was remarkable (from 9.4% to 17.6%). It is estimated that during this period, about 1 in 52 newborns in the Netherlands was an IVF or ICSI child (1996: 1 in 77, 2005: 1 in 43). There were differences between the individual centres regarding the ongoing pregnancy rate per cycle (range: 15.0-26.4%), the percentage of ICSI (range 20-58%), the percentage of cryo transfers per cycle (range: 4-22%) and the multiple pregnancy rate (range 5-27% in 2005). CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands the pregnancy rate has increased over the last 10 years as has the number of IVF treatments. Cryo transfers have become increasingly important and the multiple pregnancy rate has decreased. Although thanks to the collaboration of all centres, the current registry produces important data and works well, there are a number of limitations e.g. the retrospective nature with no validation, which must be tackled over the coming years.

Ovarian stimulation protocols (anti-oestrogens, gonadotrophins with and without GnRH agonists/antagonists) for intrauterine insemination (IUI) in women with subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) combined with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) has been demonstrated to be an effective form of treatment for subfertile couples. Several ovarian stimulation protocols combined with IUI have been proposed, but it is still not clear which stimulation protocol and which dose is the most cost-effective. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate ovarian stimulation protocols for intrauterine insemination for all indications. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials comparing different ovarian stimulation protocols followed by IUI. We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We searched the electronic databases of MEDLINE (January 1966 to present) and EMBASE (1980 to present). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials only were considered for inclusion in this review. Trials comparing different ovarian stimulation protocols combined with IUI were selected and reviewed in detail. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors independently assess trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Forty three trials involving 3957 women were included. There were 11 comparisons in this review. Pregnancy rates are reported here since results of live birth rates were lacking. Seven studies (n = 556) were pooled comparing gonadotrophins with anti-oestrogens showing significant higher pregnancy rates with gonadotrophins (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.7). Five studies (n = 313) compared anti-oestrogens with aromatase inhibitors reporting no significant difference (OR 1.2 95% CI 0.64 to 2.1). The same could be concluded comparing different types of gonadotrophins (9 studies included, n = 576). Four studies (n = 391) reported the effect of adding a GnRH agonist which did not improve pregnancy rates (OR 0.98 95% CI 0.6 to 1.6), although it resulted in significant higher multiple pregnancy rates (OR 2.9 95% CI 1.0 to 8). Data of three studies (n = 299) showed no convincing evidence of adding a GnRH antagonist to gonadotrophins (OR 1.5 95% CI 0.83 to 2.8). The results of two studies (n = 297) reported no evidence of benefit in doubling the dose of gonadotrophins (OR 1.2 95% 0.67 to 1.9) although the multiple pregnancy rates and OHSS rates were increased. For the remaining five comparisons only one or none studies were included. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Robust evidence is lacking but based on the available results gonadotrophins might be the most effective drugs when IUI is combined with ovarian hyperstimulation. When gonadotrophins are applied it might be done on a daily basis. When gonadotrophins are used for ovarian stimulation low dose protocols are advised since pregnancy rates do not differ from pregnancy rates which result from high dose regimen, whereas the chances to encounter negative effects from ovarian stimulation such as multiples and OHSS are limited with low dose gonadotrophins. Further research is needed for each comparison made.

Intra-uterine insemination for male subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. Its use, especially when combined with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) has been subject of discussion. Although the treatment itself is less invasive and expensive than others, its efficacy has not been proven. Furthermore, the adverse effects of OH such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS ) and multiple pregnancy are a concern. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine whether for couples with male subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rates or ongoing pregnancy rates compared with timed intercourse (TI), with or without OH. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual and Disorders Subfertility Group Trials Special Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library, 2006, issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2006), EMBASE (1980 to May 2006), SCIsearch and the reference lists of articles. We hand searched abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. Authors of identified articles were contacted for unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) with at least one of the following comparisons were included: 1) IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycles 2) IUI versus TI both in cycles with OH 3) IUI in natural cycles versus TI + OH 4) IUI + OH versus TI in natural cycles 5) IUI in natural cycles versus IUI + OH. Couples with abnormal sperm parameters only were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two co-reviewers independently performed quality assessment and data extraction. Where possible data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was performed. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were carried out where possible and appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials of parallel design, and five trials of cross-over design with pre-cross-over data were included in the meta-analysis. Three compared IUI with TI both in stimulated cycles. The remaining four of these studies compared IUI versus IUI + OH . Three studies reported on our main outcome of interest live birth rate per couple. For the comparison IUI versus TI both in natural cycles no evidence of difference between the probabilities of pregnancy rates per woman after IUI compared with TI was found (Peto OR 5.3, 95% CI 0.42 to 67). No statistically significant of difference between pregnancy rates (PR) per couple for IUI + OH versus IUI could be found (Peto OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.37). For the comparison IUI versus TI both in stimulated cycles there was no evidence of statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates per couple either (Peto OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.37). There were insufficient data available for adverse outcomes such as OHSS, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage rate and ectopic pregnancy to perform a statistical analysis. For the other two comparisons no RCT's were found which reported pregnancy rates per couple. A further 10 studies which included one of the comparisons of interests were found. Since these studies reported pregnancy rates per cycle only these data could not be included in the meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence of effectiveness to recommend or advise against IUI with or without OH above TI, or vice versa. Large, high quality randomised controlled trials, comparing IUI with or without OH with pregnancy rate per couple as the main outcome of interest are lacking. There is a need for such trials since firm conclusions cannot be drawn yet.