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

Funding Information: WL is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT2016729). RW is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT20009767). BWM is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and he reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck and travel support from Merck.Peer reviewe

The INeS study: prevention of multiple pregnancies: a randomised controlled trial comparing IUI COH versus IVF e SET versus MNC IVF in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility

BACKGROUND Multiple pregnancies are high risk pregnancies with higher chances of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. In the past decades the number of multiple pregnancies has increased. This trend is partly due to the fact that women start family planning at an increased age, but also due to the increased use of ART. Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility generally receive intrauterine insemination IUI with controlled hormonal stimulation (IUI COH). The cumulative pregnancy rate is 40%, with a 10% multiple pregnancy rate. This study aims to reveal whether alternative treatments such as IVF elective Single Embryo Transfer (IVF e SET) or Modified Natural Cycle IVF (MNC IVF) can reduce the number of multiple pregnancy rates, but uphold similar pregnancy rates as IUI COH in couples with mild male or unexplained subfertility. Secondly, the aim is to perform a cost effective analyses and assess treatment preference of these couples. METHODS/DESIGN We plan a multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands comparing six cycles of intra-uterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation or six cycles of Modified Natural Cycle (MNC) IVF or three cycles with IVF-elective Single Embryo Transfer (eSET) plus cryo-cycles within a time frame of 12 months. Couples with unexplained subfertility or mild male subfertility and a poor prognosis for treatment independent pregnancy will be included. Women with anovulatory cycles, severe endometriosis, double sided tubal pathology or serious endocrine illness will be excluded. Our primary outcome is the birth of a healthy singleton. Secondary outcomes are multiple pregnancy, treatment costs, and patient experiences in each treatment arm. The analysis will be performed according tot the intention to treat principle. We will test for non-inferiority of the three arms with respect to live birth. As we accept a 12.5% loss in pregnancy rate in one of the two IVF arms to prevent multiple pregnancies, we need 200 couples per arm (600 couples in total). DISCUSSION Determining the safest and most cost-effective treatment will ensure optimal chances of pregnancy for subfertile couples with substantially diminished perinatal and maternal complications. Should patients find the most cost-effective treatment acceptable or even preferable, this could imply the need for a world wide shift in the primary treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 52843371Alexandra J Bensdorp, Els Slappendel, Carolien Koks, Jur Oosterhuis, Annemieke Hoek, Peter Hompes, Frank Broekmans, Harold Verhoeve, Jan Peter de Bruin, Janne Meije van Weert, Maaike Traas, Jacques Maas, Nicole Beckers, Sjoerd Repping, Ben W Mol, Fulco van der Veen and Madelon van Wel

Assisted reproductive technologies for male subfertility

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. The use of these treatments has been subject of discussion. Knowledge on the effectiveness of fertility treatments for male subfertility with different grades of severity is limited. Possibly, couples are exposed to unnecessary or ineffective treatments on a large scale. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different fertility treatments (expectant management, timed intercourse (TI), IUI, IVF and ICSI) for couples whose subfertility appears to be due to abnormal sperm parameters. We searched for all publications that described randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the treatment for male subfertility. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the National Research Register from inception to 14 April 2015, and web-based trial registers from January 1985 to April 2015. We applied no language restrictions. We checked all references in the identified trials and background papers and contacted authors to identify relevant published and unpublished data. We included RCTs comparing different treatment options for male subfertility. These were expectant management, TI (with or without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH)), IUI (with or without OH), IVF and ICSI. We included only couples with abnormal sperm parameters. Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. They resolved disagreements by discussion with the rest of the review authors. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per couple randomised. The review included 10 RCTs (757 couples). The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and inconsistency. IUI versus TI (five RCTs)Two RCTs compared IUI with TI in natural cycles. There were no data on live birth or OHSS. We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy rates (2 RCTs, 62 couples: odds ratio (OR) 4.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 102, very low quality evidence; there were no events in one of the studies).Three RCTs compared IUI with TI both in cycles with OH. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 81 couples: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.59; low quality evidence) or pregnancy rates (3 RCTs, 202 couples: OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.07; I(2) = 11%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the 62 women had OHSS.One RCT compared IUI in cycles with OH with TI in natural cycles. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 44 couples: OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 81.35; very low quality evidence). Data on OHSS were not available. IUI in cycles with OH versus IUI in natural cycles (five RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (3 RCTs, 346 couples: OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.33; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence) and pregnancy rates (4 RCTs, 399 couples: OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.82; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. IVF versus IUI in natural cycles or cycles with OH (two RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF versus IUI in natural cycles (1 RCT, 53 couples: OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.35; low quality evidence) or IVF versus IUI in cycles with OH (2 RCTs, 86 couples: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.45; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the women had OHSS.Overall, we found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of live birth, pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage). However, most of the evidence was very low quality.There were no studies on IUI in natural cycles versus TI in stimulated cycles, IVF versus TI, ICSI versus TI, ICSI versus IUI (with OH) or ICSI versus IVF. We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in safety and effectiveness between different treatments for male subfertility. More research is neede

Dizygotic twin pregnancies after medically assisted reproduction and after natural conception: maternal and perinatal outcomes

To compare maternal and perinatal outcomes in dizygotic twin pregnancies conceived after medically assisted reproduction (MAR) with outcomes after natural conception (NC). Nationwide registry based study. Academic medical center. Primiparous women who delivered opposite sex twins between January 2000 and December 2012 in the Netherlands, comprising dizygotic twin pregnancies: 6,694 women, 470 after ovulation induction (OI), 511 after intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH), 2,437 after in vitro fertilization (IVF) with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and 3,276 after NC. None. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear mixed models to evaluate differences in outcomes: maternal outcomes of hypertension, preeclampsia, preterm delivery, hemorrhage, and delivery mode, perinatal outcomes including small for gestational age (SGA) with birth weight <10th percentile, birth weight <1,500 g, 5-minute Apgar score <7, admission to neonatal intensive care unit, congenital anomalies, and perinatal mortality. We found no statistically significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes after OI compared with NC. Women pregnant after IVF-ICSI had a lower risk for hypertension (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.83) compared with women pregnant after NC. After IUI-COH more children had Apgar scores <7 (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.81) and perinatal mortality rates were higher (aOR 1.56; 95% CI, 1.04-2.33) compared with NC. We found no differences in perinatal outcomes after IVF-ICSI compared with NC. Overall, maternal and perinatal risks other than those due to multiplicity are similar for twin pregnancies conceived after MAR and after N

Significantly Increased Pregnancy Rates After Laparoscopic Restorative Proctocolectomy A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: To assess the impact of a laparoscopic approach on female fecundity in ileoanal pouch surgery. Background: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is associated with tubal factor infertility in female patients. Different studies showed less adhesion formation after laparoscopic colectomy. The relation between laparoscopic pouch surgery and fertility, however, has not been studied so far. Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out in 3 university hospitals in the Netherlands and in Belgium. Female patients older than 18 years that had IPAA under the age of 41 were eligible for inclusion (n = 179). We sent them a questionnaire addressing medical and fertility history. The primary endpoint was time to first spontaneous pregnancy after IPAA. This study has been registered with ISRCTN.org (ISRCTN85421386). Results: Of 179 eligible patients, 160 (89%) returned the questionnaire. After IPAA, 50 (31%) patients attempted to conceive. Of these, 23 (46%) had undergone open and 27 (54%) had undergone laparoscopic IPAA. Patient characteristics were similar in both groups. Indications for surgery were ulcerative colitis (UC) in 37 patients, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) in 12 patients, and colonic ischemia in 1 patient. A Kaplan-Meier survival function was plotted for time to first spontaneous pregnancy and showed a higher pregnancy rate after laparoscopic IPAA (log-rank, P = 0.023). Similarly, subsequent survival analysis for all patients with UC showed an increased pregnancy rate for the laparoscopic group (log-rank, P = 0.033). Conclusions: Pregnancy rates are significantly higher after laparoscopic IPAA. This makes the laparoscopic approach the method of choice in young wome

A revised prediction model for natural conception

One of the aims in reproductive medicine is to differentiate between couples that have favourable chances of conceiving naturally and those that do not. Since the development of the prediction model of Hunault, characteristics of the subfertile population have changed. The objective of this analysis was to assess whether additional predictors can refine the Hunault model and extend its applicability. Consecutive subfertile couples with unexplained and mild male subfertility presenting in fertility clinics were asked to participate in a prospective cohort study. We constructed a multivariable prediction model with the predictors from the Hunault model and new potential predictors. The primary outcome, natural conception leading to an ongoing pregnancy, was observed in 1053 women of the 5184 included couples (20%). All predictors of the Hunault model were selected into the revised model plus an additional seven (woman's body mass index, cycle length, basal FSH levels, tubal status,history of previous pregnancies in the current relationship (ongoing pregnancies after natural conception, fertility treatment or miscarriages), semen volume, and semen morphology. Predictions from the revised model seem to concur better with observed pregnancy rates compared with the Hunault model; c-statistic of 0.71 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.73) compared with 0.59 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.61)

Dropout rates in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization and intrauterine insemination

Objective: To compare dropout rates in couples undergoing conventional in vitro fertilization with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET), in vitro fertilization in a modified natural cycle (IVF-MNC) or intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS). Study design: Secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled trial between January 2009 and February 2012. 602 couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility, allocated to IVF-SET (N= 201), IVF-MNC (N= 194) and IUI-OS (N=207). Main outcome measures: Dropouts, defined as couples who discontinued their allocated three cycles of IVF-SET, six cycles of IVF-MNC or IUI-OS, without having achieved a pregnancy. We classified dropouts as "following medical advice" or "patient initiated". Result(s): Thirty couples (15%) allocated to IVF-SET dropped out and 45 couples (23%) allocated to IVF-MNC, compared to 26 couples (13%) allocated to IUI-OS; relative risk (RR) 1.2 (95%CI; 0.73-1.9) for IVF-SET and 1.9 (95%CI; 1.2-2.9) for IVF-MNC, both compared to IUI-OS. Nine couples (4.5%) allocated to IVF-SET, 14 (7.2%) allocated to IVF-MNC and 14 (6.8%) allocated to IUI-OS dropped out following medical advice; RR of 0.51 (95%CI; 0.21-1.2) for IVF-SET and 0.84 (95%CI; 0.391.80) for IVF-MNC, both versus IUI-OS. Twenty-one couples (10%) allocated to IVF-SET were patient initiated dropouts, as were 31 (16%) allocated to IVF-MNC and 12 (5.8%) allocated to IUI-COS; RR 1.8 (95% CI; 0.91-3.6) for IVF-SET and 2.8 (95%CI; 1.5-5.2) for IVF-MNC both versus IUI-OS. Conclusion(s): IVF-SET and IUI-OS result in comparable drop-out rates, while drop-out rates after IVF-MNC are almost twice as high, mainly driven by patient preferences. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved

A revised prediction model for natural conception

One of the aims in reproductive medicine is to differentiate between couples that have favourable chances of conceiving naturally and those that do not. Since the development of the prediction model of Hunault, characteristics of the subfertile population have changed. The objective of this analysis was to assess whether additional predictors can refine the Hunault model and extend its applicability. Consecutive subfertile couples with unexplained and mild male subfertility presenting in fertility clinics were asked to participate in a prospective cohort study. We constructed a multivariable prediction model with the predictors from the Hunault model and new potential predictors. The primary outcome, natural conception leading to an ongoing pregnancy, was observed in 1053 women of the 5184 included couples (20%). All predictors of the Hunault model were selected into the revised model plus an additional seven (woman's body mass index, cycle length, basal FSH levels, tubal status,history of previous pregnancies in the current relationship (ongoing pregnancies after natural conception, fertility treatment or miscarriages), semen volume, and semen morphology. Predictions from the revised model seem to concur better with observed pregnancy rates compared with the Hunault model; c-statistic of 0.71 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.73) compared with 0.59 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.61).Alexandra J.Bensdorp, Jan Willemvan der Steeg, Pieternel Steures, J. Dik F.Habbema, Peter G.A.Hompese, Patrick M.M.Bossuyt, Fulcovan der Veena, Ben W.J.Mol, Marinus J.C.Eijkeman