RESUMO
STUDY QUESTION: Is pregnancy success rate after a concise infertility work-up the same as pregnancy success rate after the traditional extensive infertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: The ongoing pregnancy rate within a follow-up of 1 year after a concise infertility work-up is significantly lower than the pregnancy success rate after the traditional and extensive infertility work-up. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Based on cost-effectiveness studies, which have mainly focused on diagnosis, infertility work-up has become less comprehensive. Many centres have even adopted a one-stop approach to their infertility work-up. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We performed a historically controlled cohort study. In 2012 and 2013 all new infertile couples (n = 795) underwent an extensive infertility work-up (group A). In 2014 and 2015, all new infertile couples (n = 752) underwent a concise infertility work-up (group B). The follow-up period was 1 year for both groups. Complete follow-up was available for 99.0% of couples in group A and 97.5% in group B. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The extensive infertility work-up consisted of history taking, a gynaecological ultrasound scan, semen analysis, ultrasonographic cycle monitoring, a timed postcoital test, a timed progesterone and chlamydia antibody titre. A hysterosalpingography (HSG) was advised routinely. The concise infertility work-up was mainly based on history taking, a gynaecological ultrasound scan and semen analysis. A HSG was only performed if tubal pathology was suspected or before the start of IUI. Laparoscopy and hormonal tests were only performed if indicated. Couples were treated according to the diagnosis with either expectant management (if the Hunault prognostic score was >30%), ovulation induction (in case of ovulation disorders), IUI in natural cycles (in case of cervical factor), IUI in stimulated cycles (if the Hunault prognostic score was <30%) or IVF/ICSI (in case of tubal factor, advanced female age, severe male factor and if other treatments remained unsuccessful). The primary outcomes were time to pregnancy and the ongoing pregnancy rates in both groups. The secondary outcomes were the number of investigations, the distribution of diagnoses made, the first treatment (started) after infertility work-up and the mode of conception. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The descriptive data, such as age, duration of infertility, type of infertility and lifestyle habits, in both groups were comparable. In group A, more than twice the number of infertility investigations were performed, compared to group B. An HSG was made less frequently in group B (33% versus 42%) and at a later stage. A Kaplan-Meier curve shows a shorter time to pregnancy in group A. Also, a significantly higher overall ongoing pregnancy rate within a follow-up of 1 year was found in group A (58.7% versus 46.8%, respectively, P < 0.001). In group A, more couples conceived during the infertility work-up (14.7% versus 6.5%, respectively, P < 0.05). The diagnosis cervical infertility could only be made in group A (9.3%). The diagnosis unexplained infertility differed between groups, at 23.5% in group A and 32.2% in group B (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a historically controlled cohort study; introduction of bias cannot be ruled out. The follow-up rate was similar in the two groups and therefore could not explain the differences in pregnancy rate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Re-introduction of an extensive infertility work-up should be considered as it may lead to higher ongoing pregnancy rates within a year. The therapeutic effects of HSG and timing of intercourse may improve the fertility chance. This finding should be verified in a randomized controlled trial. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was obtained for this study. No conflicts of interest were declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
RESUMO
STUDY QUESTION: Does the prewash total motile sperm count (TMSC) have a better predictive value for spontaneous ongoing pregnancy (SOP) than the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system? SUMMARY ANSWER: The prewash TMSC shows a better correlation with the spontaneous ongoing pregnancy rate (SOPR) than the WHO 2010 classification system. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: According to the WHO classification system, an abnormal semen analysis can be diagnosed as oligozoospermia, astenozoospermia, teratozoospermia or combinations of these and azoospermia. This classification is based on the fifth percentile cut-off values of a cohort of 1953 men with proven fertility. Although this classification suggests accuracy, the relevance for the prognosis of an infertile couple and the choice of treatment is questionable. The TMSC is obtained by multiplying the sample volume by the density and the percentage of A and B motility spermatozoa. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We analyzed data from a longitudinal cohort study among unselected infertile couples who were referred to three Dutch hospitals between January 2002 and December 2006. Of the total cohort of 2476 infertile couples, only the couples with either male infertility as a single diagnosis or unexplained infertility were included (n = 1177) with a follow-up period of 3 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In all couples a semen analysis was performed. Based on the best semen analysis if more tests were performed, couples were grouped according to the WHO classification system and the TMSC range, as described in the Dutch national guidelines for male infertility. The primary outcome measure was the SOPR, which occurred before, during or after treatments, including expectant management, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. After adjustment for the confounding factors (female and male age, duration and type of infertility and result of the postcoital test) the odd ratios (ORs) for risk of SOP for each WHO and TMSC group were calculated. The couples with unexplained infertility were used as reference. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 514 couples did and 663 couples did not achieve a SOP. All WHO groups have a lower SOPR compared with the unexplained group (ORs varying from 0.136 to 0.397). Comparing the couples within the abnormal WHO groups, there are no significant differences in SOPR, except when oligoasthenoteratozoospermia is compared with asthenozoospermia [OR 0.501 (95% CI 0.311-0.809)] and teratozoospermia [OR 0.499 (95% CI: 0.252-0.988)], and oligoasthenozoospermia is compared with asthenozoospermia [OR 0.572 (95% CI: 0.373-0.877)]. All TMSC groups have a significantly lower SOPR compared with the unexplained group (ORs varying from 0.171 to 0.461). Couples with a TMSC of <1 × 10(6) and 1-5 × 10(6) have significantly lower SOPR compared with couples with a TMSC of 5-10 × 10(6) [respectively, OR 0.371 (95% CI: 0.215-0.64) and OR 0.505 (95% CI: 0.307-0.832)]. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: To include all SOPs during the follow-up period of 3 years, couples were not censured at the start of treatment. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Roughly, three prognostic groups can be discerned: couples with a TMSC <5, couples with a TMSC between 5 and 20 and couples with a TMSC of more than 20 × 10(6) spermatozoa. We suggest using TMSC as the method of choice to express severity of male infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None.
