Birthweight and other perinatal outcomes of singletons conceived after assisted reproduction compared to natural conceived singletons in couples with unexplained subfertility: follow-up of two randomized clinical trials.

STUDY QUESTION: Does assisted reproduction, such as ovarian stimulation and/or laboratory procedures, have impact on perinatal outcomes of singleton live births compared to natural conception in couples with unexplained subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: Compared to natural conception, singletons born after intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) had a lower birthweight, while singletons born after IVF had comparable birthweights, in couples with unexplained subfertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Singletons conceived by assisted reproduction have different perinatal outcomes such as low birthweight and a higher risk of premature birth than naturally conceived singletons. This might be due to the assisted reproduction, such as laboratory procedures or the ovarian stimulation, or to an intrinsic factor in couples with subfertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a prospective cohort study using the follow-up data of two randomized clinical trials performed in couples with unexplained subfertility. We evaluated perinatal outcomes of 472 live birth singletons conceived after assisted reproduction or after natural conception within the time horizon of the studies. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: To assess the possible impact of ovarian stimulation we compared the singletons conceived after IUI with FSH or clomiphene citrate (CC) and IVF in a modified natural cycle (IVF-MNC) or standard IVF with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET) to naturally conceived singletons in the same cohorts. To further look into the possible effect of the laboratory procedures, we put both IUI and IVF groups together into IUI-OS and IVF and compared both to singletons born after natural conception. We only included singletons conceived after fresh embryo transfers. The main outcome was birthweight presented as absolute weight in grams and gestational age- and gender-adjusted percentiles. We calculated differences in birthweight using regression analyses adjusted for maternal age, BMI, smoking, parity, duration of subfertility and child gender. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, there were 472 live birth singletons. Of the 472 singleton pregnancies, 209 were conceived after IUI-OS (136 with FSH and 73 with CC as ovarian stimulation), 138 after IVF (50 after IVF-MNC and 88 after IVF-SET) and 125 were conceived naturally.Singletons conceived following IUI-FSH and IUI-CC both had lower birthweights compared to naturally conceived singletons (adjusted difference IUI-FSH -156.3 g, 95% CI -287.9 to -24.7; IUI-CC -160.3 g, 95% CI -316.7 to -3.8). When we compared IVF-MNC and IVF-SET to naturally conceived singletons, no significant difference was found (adjusted difference IVF-MNC 75.8 g, 95% CI -102.0 to 253.7; IVF-SET -10.6 g, 95% CI -159.2 to 138.1). The mean birthweight percentile was only significantly lower in the IUI-FSH group (-7.0 percentile, 95% CI -13.9 to -0.2). The IUI-CC and IVF-SET group had a lower mean percentile and the IVF-MNC group a higher mean percentile, but these groups were not significant different compared to the naturally conceived group (IUI-CC -5.1 percentile, 95% CI -13.3 to 3.0; IVF-MNC 4.4 percentile, 95% CI -4.9 to 13.6; IVF-SET -1.3 percentile, 95% CI -9.1 to 6.4).Looking at the laboratory process that took place, singletons conceived following IUI-OS had lower birthweights than naturally conceived singletons (adjusted difference -157.7 g, 95% CI -277.4 to -38.0). The IVF group had comparable birthweights with the naturally conceived group (adjusted difference 20.9 g, 95% CI -110.8 to 152.6). The mean birthweight percentile was significantly lower in the IUI-OS group compared to the natural group (-6.4 percentile, 95% CI -12.6 to -0.1). The IVF group was comparable (0.7 percentile, 95% CI -6.1 to 7.6). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results are limited by the number of cases. The data were collected prospectively alongside the randomized controlled trials, but analyzed as treated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our data suggest IUI in a stimulated cycle may have a negative impact on the birthweight of the child and possibly on pre-eclampsia. Further research should look into the effect of different methods of ovarian stimulation on placenta pathology and pre-eclampsia in couples with unexplained subfertility using naturally conceived singletons in the unexplained population as a reference. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Both initial trials were supported by a grant from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (INeS 120620027, SUPER 80-83600-98-10192). The INeS study also had a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Dutch association of healthcare insurers (09-003). B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC investigator Grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomix, outside the submitted work. A.H. reports grants from Ferring Pharmaceutical company (the Netherlands), outside the submitted work. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono (the Netherlands), Ferring Pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Gedeon Richter (Belgium), he receives personal fees from educational activities for Ferring BV (the Netherlands) and for advisory and consultancy work for Roche and he receives research support grants from Merck Serono and Ferring Pharmaceutics BV, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: INeS study Trial NL915 (NTR939); SUPER Trial NL3895 (NTR4057).

Natural conception rates in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility scheduled for fertility treatment: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the natural conception rate over the course of 12 months in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility who are scheduled for fertility treatment and have a predicted unfavourable prognosis for natural conception? SUMMARY ANSWER: The natural conception rate over the course of 12 months in couples who were allocated to treatment was estimated to be 24.5% (95% CI: 20-29%). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: After starting treatment, couples often perceive unsuccessful cycles as evidence of definitive failure even though they are still able to conceive naturally in between and after treatment. The magnitude of the natural conception rate for couples who chose to commence treatment is unknown, as is whether the calculated prognosis before commencing treatment is still applicable. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial including couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception. Couples were allocated to either three cycles IVF with single embryo transfer (SET), six cycles of IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) or six cycles of IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH). The detailed data collection in this trial allowed us to study the conception rates in periods that couples were not receiving treatment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: We split the dataset into periods during which couples were treated and periods during which they were not treated. Couples could conceive naturally in the periods before, in between and after treatment cycles. The outcome was ongoing pregnancy, thus natural conception rate refers to natural conception leading to ongoing pregnancy. We performed a Cox proportional hazards analysis with female age, duration of subfertility and a time-varying covariate with four categories: IVF-SET, IVF-MNC, IUI-COH and no treatment. We used this Cox model to estimate the natural conception rate over 12 months of no treatment. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Out of 602 included couples, there were 342 ongoing pregnancies, of which 77 (23%) resulted from natural conception. The estimated natural conception rate over 12 months was 24.5% (95% CI: 20-29%) on cohort level. Estimated rates for female age varying between 18 and 38 years and duration of subfertility between 1 and 3 years ranged from 22 to 35%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We considered couples at risk for natural conception when not receiving treatment, whereas they might not have had periovulatory sexual intercourse. As couples were scheduled for treatment, it is possible that these couples were less inclined to try to conceive naturally, potentially leading to an underestimation of their natural conception rate if they kept trying to conceive. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Couples with unexplained subfertility who are about to start fertility treatment, still have about a one in four chance of ongoing pregnancy due to natural conception over 12 months. This information can add to the counselling of couples who commenced fertility treatment after failed cycles and to emphasize not to cease their natural attempts. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The INeS trial was supported by a grant from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (120620027), and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Dutch association of health care insurers (09-003). The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. No other potential conflicts of interest reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The INeS trial was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 939).

IVF or IUI as first-line treatment in unexplained subfertility: the conundrum of treatment selection markers.

STUDY QUESTION: Are there treatment selection markers that could aid in identifying couples, with unexplained or mild male subfertility, who would have better chances of a healthy child with IVF with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET) than with IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: We did not find any treatment selection markers that were associated with better chances of a healthy child with IVF-SET instead of IUI-OS in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A recent trial, comparing IVF-SET to IUI-OS, found no evidence of a difference between live birth rates and multiple pregnancy rates. It was suggested that IUI-OS should remain the first-line treatment instead of IVF-SET in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and female age between 18 and 38 years. The question remains whether there are some couples that may have higher pregnancy chances if treated with IVF-SET instead of IUI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed our analyses on data from the INeS trial, where couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception were randomly allocated to IVF-SET, IVF in a modified natural cycle or IUI-OS. In view of the aim of this study, we only used data of the comparison between IVF-SET (201 couples) and IUI-OS (207 couples). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We pre-defined the following baseline characteristics as potential treatment selection markers: female age, ethnicity, smoking status, type of subfertility (primary/secondary), duration of subfertility, BMI, pre-wash total motile count and Hunault prediction score. For each potential treatment selection marker, we explored the association with the chances of a healthy child after IVF-SET and IUI-OS and tested if there was an interaction with treatment. Given the exploratory nature of our analysis, we used a P-value of 0.1. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: None of the markers were associated with higher chances of a healthy child from IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS (P-value for interaction >0.10). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since this is the first large study that looked at potential treatment selection markers for IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS, we had no data on which to base a power calculation. The sample size was limited, making it difficult to detect any smaller associations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We could not identify couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility who would have had higher chances of a healthy child from immediate IVF-SET than from IUI-OS. As in the original trial IUI-OS had similar effectiveness and was less costly compared to IVF-SET, IUI-OS should remain the preferred first-line treatment in these couples. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a grant from the Netherlands' association of health care insurers. There are no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR939).

IUI and IVF for unexplained subfertility: where did we go wrong?

IUI is a first-line treatment for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and has become one of the most widely used fertility-enhancing treatments. The results of a recent trial comparing IVF to IUI, demonstrating similar live birth rates, have been used to build a case supporting the effectiveness of IUI. Yet, this conclusion might be somewhat premature, as the superiority of neither IUI nor IVF over no treatment has ever been proven. The evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IUI and IVF has been evaluated in two Cochrane reviews which both suggested that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that IUI or IVF is effective compared to sexual intercourse in couples with unexplained subfertility. Recommendations for clinical practice have been given in the most recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence fertility guideline that advises not to offer IUI any longer and suggests 2 years of sexual intercourse followed by IVF. This recommendation has generated an ongoing debate, with only 4% of all gynecologists in the UK discontinuing the use of IUI. We feel that it is high time to provide proper scientific evidence for the effectiveness of IUI, or lack thereof, and invite the medical community to start RCTs comparing IUI to sexual intercourse.

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.

The effects of intrauterine insemination and single embryo transfer or modified natural cycle in vitro fertilization on offspring's health-Follow-up of a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Does ovarian hyperstimulation and/or the in vitro procedure of assisted reproduction affect neurodevelopmental and physical health of the offspring? STUDY DESIGN: Infertile couples were randomly allocated to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH), modified natural cycle in vitro fertilization (IVF-MNC) or single embryo transfer IVF (IVF-SET). We compared neurodevelopmental and physical health in childhood (4-7 years). We used age-appropriate questionnaires to assess behavioral problems (Child Behavior Check List (CBCL)) and executive functioning (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)). We measured body mass index Z-score, waist- and hip-circumference, body fat percentage, blood pressure Z-scores, pulse wave velocity, glucose, insulin, insulin resistance, total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and high sensitivity c-reactive protein. We compared groups by analysis of variance. RESULTS: We examined 191 (57%) of the 333 children born in the study at a mean age of 5.5 years (range 4.0-7.6 years). We found no statistically significant differences between randomization groups in children's neurodevelopmental or physical health indices (all p-values > 0.05). Comparing the outcomes between actual method of conception, including a naturally conceived group, also did not show statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Although this follow-up study was not powered on childhood outcomes and limited power due to attrition may have hampered detection of subtle effects, we found no indications of differences in neurodevelopmental and physical health between ovarian hyperstimulation and/or the in vitro procedure of assisted reproduction. Future trials should be powered on child outcomes, and aim to optimize follow-up rates to provide answers that are more definitive.

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.

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 is 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.

Prevention of multiple pregnancies in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility: randomised controlled trial of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle with that of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of a healthy child. DESIGN: Multicentre, open label, three arm, parallel group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: 17 centres in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Couples seeking fertility treatment after at least 12 months of unprotected intercourse, with the female partner aged between 18 and 38 years, an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception, and a diagnosis of unexplained or mild male subfertility. INTERVENTIONS: Three cycles of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer (plus subsequent cryocycles), six cycles of in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, or six cycles of intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation within 12 months after randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was birth of a healthy child resulting from a singleton pregnancy conceived within 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, time to pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, and neonatal morbidity and mortality RESULTS: 602 couples were randomly assigned between January 2009 and February 2012; 201 were allocated to in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 194 to in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 207 to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Birth of a healthy child occurred in 104 (52%) couples in the in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer group, 83 (43%) in the in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle group, and 97 (47%) in the intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation group. This corresponds to a risk, relative to intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation, of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.34) for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and 0.91 (0.73 to 1.14) for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle. These 95% confidence intervals do not extend below the predefined threshold of 0.69 for inferiority. Multiple pregnancy rates per ongoing pregnancy were 6% (7/121) after in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 5% (5/102) after in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 7% (8/119) after intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation (one sided P=0.52 for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer compared with intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation; one sided P=0.33 for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation). CONCLUSIONS: In vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle were non-inferior to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of the birth of a healthy child and showed comparable, low multiple pregnancy rates.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Prognostic profiles and the effectiveness of assisted conception: secondary analyses of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: At present, it is unclear which treatment strategy is best for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. We hypothesized that the prognostic profile influences the effectiveness of assisted conception. We addressed this issue by analysing individual patient data (IPD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We performed an IPD analysis of published RCTs on treatment strategies for subfertile couples. Eligible studies were identified from Cochrane systematic reviews and we also searched Medline and EMBASE. The authors of RCTs that compared expectant management (EM), intracervical insemination (ICI), intrauterine insemination (IUI), all three with or without controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and IVF in couples with unexplained or male subfertility, and had reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy as an outcome measure, were invited to share their data. For each individual patient the chance of natural conception was calculated with a validated prognostic model. We constructed prognosis-by-treatment curves and tested whether there was a significant interaction between treatment and prognosis. RESULTS: We acquired data from 8 RCTs, including 2550 couples. In three studies (n = 954) the more invasive treatment strategies tended to be less effective in couples with a high chance of natural conception but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P-value for interaction between prognosis and treatment outcome were 0.71, 0.31 and 0.19). In one study (n = 932 couples) the strategies with COS (ICI and IUI) led to higher pregnancy rates than unstimulated strategies (ICI 8% versus 15%, IUI 13% versus 22%), regardless of prognosis (P-value for interaction in all comparisons >0.5), but at the expense of a high twin rate in the COS strategies (ICI 6% versus 23% and IUI 3% versus 30%, respectively). In two studies (n = 373 couples), the more invasive treatment strategies tended to be more effective in couples with a good prognosis but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P-value for interaction: 0.38 and 0.68). In one study (n = 253 couples) the differential effect of prognosis on treatment effect was limited (P-value for interaction 0.52), perhaps because prognosis was incorporated in the inclusion criteria. The only study that compared EM with IVF included 38 couples, too small for a precise estimate. CONCLUSIONS: In this IPD analysis of couples with unexplained or male subfertility, we did not find a large differential effect of prognosis on the effectiveness of fertility treatment with IUI, COS or IVF.