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.

A randomized clinical trial of clomiphene citrate versus low dose recombinant FSH for ovarian hyperstimulation in intrauterine insemination cycles for unexplained and male subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a widely accepted treatment for unexplained and male subfertility. No consensus exists about the drug of first choice to be used as hyperstimulation. This randomized multicentre trial using a parallel design compares the efficacy of clomiphene citrate (CC) with that of recombinant FSH (rFSH). METHODS: Couples with primary unexplained or male subfertility were randomized to receive CC or rFSH for ovarian hyperstimulation. The treatment was continued for up to four cycles unless pregnancy occurred. Cycles with more than three follicles were cancelled. Cumulative pregnancy rates and live birth rates were primary outcomes. Cancellation during treatment and multiple birth rates are secondary outcomes. Results were analysed following the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Seventy couples with male subfertility and 68 couples with unexplained subfertility were included. Seventy-one women received CC, and 67 received rFSH. Twenty-seven pregnancies were observed in the CC group (38%) and 23 in the rFSH group (34.3%) relative risk (RR) 1.11 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.71-1.73]. The live birth rate was 28.2% (20/71) and 26.9% (18/67) for CC and rFSH, respectively, RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.61-1.80). Overall, the live birth rates per cycle were 10% for CC-stimulated and 8.7% for rFSH stimulated cycles. The total multiple pregnancy rate was 6.0%. Thirty-five cycles (8.6%) were cancelled because of four or more follicles (CC, n = 17; rFSH, n = 18). CONCLUSIONS: In couples with primary unexplained or male subfertility participating in an IUI program, ovarian hyperstimulation can be achieved by CC or rFSH. No significant difference in live birth rates between CC and rFSH was observed. Being less expensive, CC seems the more cost-effective drug and therefore, can be offered as drug of first choice.

Reliability and sensitivity to change of a simplification of the Sharp/van der Heijde radiological assessment in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability and sensitivity to change of a simplified radiological scoring method [simple erosion narrowing score (SENS)] for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SENS was compared to the Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS) as a gold standard. METHODS: Sets of seven radiographs of hands and feet were taken of 20 RA patients with a wide spectrum of radiological damage. For 14 patients, these seven radiographs were taken during a follow-up period of 5 yr, and for six patients during a follow-up of 10 yr. Each set of radiographs was scored twice by the same observer (DvdH). Erosions and joint space narrowing were scored with SHS (range 0-448) in 32 and 30 joints in the hands, respectively, and both in 12 joints in the feet. SENS gives a score of 1 if there is any erosion in a joint and also 1 if there is any narrowing in the joint (range 0-86). In each case, SENS was derived from SHS. To analyse data, generalizability theory and repeated measurements ANOVA were used. RESULTS: The overall reliability coefficient was 0.81 for SHS and 0.80 for SENS. Intra-observer reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)] was 0.99 and 0.98 for SHS and SENS, respectively. The ICC for the sensitivity to change was 0.84 for SHS and 0.88 for SENS. The smallest detectable difference (SDD) could be determined for both methods. The presence of progression based on this SDD was very comparable between the two methods. CONCLUSION: The measurement properties of SENS are good and comparable to SHS. This makes SENS suitable for use in clinical practice and in large (epidemiological) studies, especially in the first years of disease.