Double versus single intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples

Background In subfertile couples, couples who have tried to conceive for at least one year, intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is one of the treatment modalities that can be offered. When IUI is performed a second IUI in the same cycle might add to the chances of conceiving. In a previous update of this review in 2010 it was shown that double IUI increases pregnancy rates when compared to single IUI. Since 2010, different clinical trials have been published with differing conclusions about whether double WI increases pregnancy rates compared to single IUI. Objectives To determine the effectiveness and safety of double intrauterine insemination (IUI) compared to single IUI in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLI NE, Embase and CINAHL in July 2020 and LILACS, Google scholar and Epistemoni kos in February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled, parallel trials of double versus single lUls in stimulated cycles in subfertile couples. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results We identified in nine studies involving subfertile women. The evidence was of low quality; the main limitations were unclear risk of bias, inconsistent results for some outcomes and imprecision, due to small trials with imprecise results. We are uncertain whether double IUI improves live birth rate compared to single IUI (odds ratio (OR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.88; I-2 = 29%; studies= 3, participants =468; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth following single IUI is 16%, the chance of live birth following double IUI would be between 12% and 27%. Performing a sensitivity analysis restricted to only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with low risk of selection bias showed similar results. We are uncertain whether double IUI reduces miscarriage rate compared to single IUI (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.24; I-2 = 0%; studies = 6, participants = 2363; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that chance of miscarriage following single IUI is 1.5% and the chance following double IUI would be between 1.5% and 5%. The reported clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised may increase with double 11.11 group (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.86; I-2 = 34%; studies = 9, participants = 2716; low quality evidence). This result should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality of the evidence and the moderate inconsistency. The evidence suggests that the chance of a pregnancy following single IUI is 14% and the chance following double IUI would be between 16% and 23%. We are uncertain whether double IUI affects multiple pregnancy rate compared to single IUI (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.56; I-2 = 8%; studies = 5; participants = 2203; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that chance of multiple pregnancy following single IUI is 0.7% and the chance following double ILA would be between 0.85% and 3.7%. We are uncertain whether double IUI has an effect on ectopic pregnancy rate compared to single IUI (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.28; I-2 = 0%; studies =4, participants= 1048; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that the chance of an ectopic pregnancy following single IUI is 0.8% and the chance following double IUI would be between 0.3% and 3.2%. Authors' conclusions Our main analysis, of which the evidence is low quality, shows that we are uncertain if double IUI improves live birth and reduces miscarriage compared to single IUI. Our sensitivity analysis restricted to studies of low risk of selection bias for both outcomes is consistent with the main analysis. Clinical pregnancy rate may increase in the double IUI group, but this should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. We are uncertain whether double IUI has an effect on multiple pregnancy rate and ectopic pregnancy rate compared to single IUI

Dietary Intake, Eating Behavior, Physical Activity, and Quality of Life in Infertile Women with PCOS and Obesity Compared with Non-PCOS Obese Controls

To personalize lifestyle advice for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and obesity, detailed information regarding dietary intake, eating behavior, physical activity levels, and quality of life (QoL) may be useful. We aimed to investigate in a post-hoc cross-sectional analysis within a large multicenter randomized controlled trial in women with infertility whether there are significant differences in dietary intake (vegetables, fruits, sugary drinks, alcoholic beverages, savory snacks, and sweet snacks); eating behavior (emotional eating, external eating, and restricted eating); physical activity; and QoL between women with PCOS and obesity and non-PCOS obese controls. Participants were asked to complete the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ), the Short QUestionnaire to ASsess Health-enhancing physical activity (SQUASH), and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) at study entry (PCOS: n = 170; non-PCOS: n = 321, mean BMI: 36). Linear and binary (multinomial) logistic regressions were used, and the analyses were adjusted for age, waist–hip circumference ratio, and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). No statistically significant differences in dietary intake or physical activity were observed between the two groups. The overall score of emotional eating was 34.6 ± 11.2 in the PCOS group and 34.1 ± 11.3 in the non-PCOS group (p = 0.11). QoL scores (physical and mental) did not differ between PCOS and non-PCOS women. These findings suggest that infertile women with PCOS and obesity and infertile non-PCOS obese controls do not have different dietary habits and have similar mental and physical QoL

Effectiveness of a 6-Month Lifestyle Intervention on Diet, Physical Activity, Quality of Life, and Markers of Cardiometabolic Health in Women with PCOS and Obesity and Non-PCOS Obese Controls:One Size Fits All?

Little is known about the difference in effectiveness of lifestyle intervention between women with PCOS and non-PCOS women. In a post hoc longitudinal analysis of a randomized, controlled trial, we aimed to investigate whether infertile women with PCOS and obesity (N = 87) responded differently to a 6-month lifestyle intervention program than infertile non-PCOS obese controls (N = 172). We evaluated several aspects of the intervention such as changes in diet, physical activity, and dropout rate, as well as the effect on weight, quality of life (QoL), and cardiometabolic outcomes. Multilevel analyses were used, and analyses were adjusted for baseline characteristics such as age, education, and smoking. Although BMI in both groups significantly decreased at 3 months and 6 months, there were no significant differences between the groups at 3 months (adjusted B: −0.3, 95% CI: −0.9 to 0.3, p = 0.35) and 6 months (adjusted B: 0.5, 95% CI: −0.4 to 1.4, p = 0.29). Women with PCOS and non-PCOS women had similar compliance with the lifestyle intervention in terms of actual change in diet and physical activity. Mental QoL scores were not different at either 3 or 6 months. Physical QoL scores were lower in women with PCOS compared with non-PCOS women at 3 months (adjusted B: −2.4, 95% CI: −4.8 to −0.06, p = 0.045) but not at 6 months. Cardiometabolic parameters did not differ between the groups. Our results showed that infertile women with PCOS and obesity and non-PCOS obese controls responded largely similarly to our lifestyle intervention and achieved the same level of improvement in markers of cardiometabolic health

Preconception insulin resistance and neonatal birth weight in women with obesity:role of bile acids

Research question: Does maternal preconception insulin resistance affect neonatal birth weight among women with obesity? Is insulin resistance associated with circulating bile acids? Do bile acids influence the association between maternal preconception insulin resistance and neonatal birth weight? Design: An exploratory post-hoc analysis of the LIFEstyle randomized controlled trial comparing lifestyle intervention with conventional infertility treatment in women with a BMI of ≥29 kg/m2. Fasting blood samples were collected at randomization and after 3 and 6 months in 469 women. Insulin resistance was quantified using the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Bile acid sub-species were determined by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Singletons were included (n = 238). Birth weight Z-scores were adjusted for age, offspring gender and parity. Multilevel analysis and linear regressions were used. Results: A total of 913 pairs of simultaneous preconception HOMA-IR (median [Q25; Q75]: 2.96 [2.07; 4.16]) and total bile acid measurements (1.79 [1.10; 2.94]) µmol/l were taken. Preconception HOMA-IR was positively associated with total bile acids (adjusted B 0.15; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.22; P < 0.001) and all bile acid sub-species. At the last measurement before pregnancy, HOMA-IR (2.71 [1.91; 3.74]) was positively related to birth weight Z-score (mean ± SD 0.4 ± 1.1; adjusted B 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.14; P = 0.03). None of the preconception bile acids measured were associated with birth weight. Conclusion: Maternal preconception insulin resistance is an important determinant of neonatal birth weight in women with obesity, whereas preconception bile acids are not

Male subfertility and oxidative stress

To date 15% of couples are suffering from infertility with 45–50% of males being responsible. With an increase in paternal age as well as various environmental and lifestyle factors worsening these figures are expected to increase. As the so-called free radical theory of infertility suggests, free radicals or reactive oxygen species (ROS) play an essential role in this process. However, ROS also fulfill important functions for instance in sperm maturation. The aim of this review article is to discuss the role reactive oxygen species play in male fertility and how these are influenced by lifestyle, age or disease. We will further discuss how these ROS are measured and how they can be avoided during in-vitro fertilization

Lifestyle intervention prior to IVF does not improve embryo utilization rate and cumulative live birth rate in women with obesity:a nested cohort study

STUDY QUESTION: Does lifestyle intervention consisting of an energy-restricted diet, enhancement of physical activity and motivational counseling prior to IVF improve embryo utilization rate (EUR) and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) in women with obesity? SUMMARY ANSWER: A 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding IVF improved neither EUR nor CLBR in women with obesity in the first IVF treatment cycle where at least one oocyte was retrieved. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the efficacy of a low caloric liquid formula diet (LCD) preceding IVF in women with obesity was unable to demonstrate an effect of LCD on embryo quality and live birth rate: in this study, only one fresh embryo transfer (ET) or, in case of freeze-all strategy, the first transfer with frozen-thawed embryos was reported. We hypothesized that any effect on embryo quality of a lifestyle intervention in women with obesity undergoing IVF treatment is better revealed by EUR and CLBR after transfer of all fresh and frozen-thawed embryos. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a nested cohort study within an RCT, the LIFEstyle study. The original study examined whether a 6-month lifestyle intervention prior to infertility treatment in women with obesity improved live birth rate, compared to prompt infertility treatment within 24 months after randomization. In the original study between 2009 and 2012, 577 (three women withdrew informed consent) women with obesity and infertility were assigned to a lifestyle intervention followed by infertility treatment (n = 289) or to prompt infertility treatment (n = 285). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Only participants from the LIFEstyle study who received IVF treatment were eligible for the current analysis. In total, 137 participants (n = 58 in the intervention group and n = 79 in the control group) started the first cycle. In 25 participants, the first cycle was cancelled prior to oocyte retrieval mostly due to poor response. Sixteen participants started a second or third consecutive cycle. The first cycle with successful oocyte retrieval was used for this analysis, resulting in analysis of 51 participants in the intervention group and 72 participants in the control group. Considering differences in embryo scoring methods and ET day strategy between IVF centers, we used EUR as a proxy for embryo quality. EUR was defined as the proportion of inseminated/injected oocytes per cycle that was transferred or cryopreserved as an embryo. Analysis was performed per cycle and per oocyte/embryo. CLBR was defined as the percentage of participants with at least one live birth from the first fresh and subsequent frozen-thawed ET(s). In addition, we calculated the Z-score for singleton neonatal birthweight and compared these outcomes between the two groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The overall mean age was 31.6 years and the mean BMI was 35.4 ± 3.2 kg/m(2) in the intervention group, and 34.9 ± 2.9 kg/m(2) in the control group. The weight change at 6 months was in favor of the intervention group (mean difference in kg vs the control group: −3.14, 95% CI: −5.73 to −0.56). The median (Q25; Q75) number of oocytes retrieved was 4.00 (2.00; 8.00) in the intervention group versus 6.00 (4.00; 9.75) in the control group, and was not significantly different, as was the number of oocytes inseminated/injected (4.00 [2.00; 8.00] vs 6.00 [3.00; 8.75]), normal fertilized embryos (2.00 [0.50; 5.00] vs 3.00 [1.00; 5.00]) and the number of cryopreserved embryos (2.00 [1.25; 4.75] vs 2.00 [1.00; 4.00]). The median (Q25; Q75) EUR was 33.3% (12.5%; 60.0%) in the intervention group and 33.3% (16.7%; 50.0%) in the control group in the per cycle analysis (adjusted B: 2.7%, 95% CI: −8.6% to 14.0%). In the per oocyte/embryo analysis, in total, 280 oocytes were injected or inseminated in the intervention group, 113 were utilized (transferred or cryopreserved, EUR = 40.4%); in the control group, EUR was 30.8% (142/461). The lifestyle intervention did not significantly improve EUR (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.94–1.98) in the per oocyte/embryo analysis, taking into account the interdependency of the oocytes per participant. CLBR was not significantly different between the intervention group and the control group after adjusting for type of infertility (male factor and unexplained) and smoking (27.5% vs 22.2%, adjusted OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.43–2.47). Singleton neonatal birthweight and Z-score were not significantly different between the two groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is a nested cohort study within an RCT, and no power calculation was performed. The randomization was not stratified for indicated treatment, and although we corrected our analyses for baseline differences, there may be residual confounding. The limited absolute weight loss and the short duration of the lifestyle intervention might be insufficient to affect EUR and CLBR. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our data do not support the hypothesis of a beneficial short-term effect of lifestyle intervention on EUR and CLBR after IVF in women with obesity, although more studies are needed as there may be a potential clinically relevant effect on EUR. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). A.H. has received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet, has been a member of the ObsEva advisory board and holds Stock options for ObsEva. B.W.J.M. has received research funding from Guerbet, Ferring and Merck. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees from membership of the external advisory board for Merck Serono and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The LIFEstyle RCT was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530). https://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1530

Expectant management versus IUI in unexplained subfertility and a poor pregnancy prognosis (EXIUI study) : a randomized controlled trial

Funding The study received a grant from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw; www.zonmw.nl). ZonMw has no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Effect of parental and ART treatment characteristics on perinatal outcomes

Funding This study was funded by Foreest Medical School, Alkmaar, the Netherlands (grants: FIO 1307 and FIO 1505). Acknowledgements We thank the Foundation of the Netherlands Perinatal Registry for permission to use their registry data (approval number 12.43). We thank G.P. Kroon and H.W.W. van Leeuwen for their assistance in collecting the necessary IVF data. Furthermore, we thank the medical informatics students A. Wong for the first deterministic data linkage and S. Wortel for assisting in the database validation process. In addition, we thank all care providers for the registration of the perinatal data as well as the IVF laboratory data.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Dietary and/or physical activity interventions in women with overweight or obesity prior to fertility treatment : protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Funding Information: This project is partly supported by the Centre for Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (app1171592) through a project support grant. RW is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHRMC) Investigator grant (2009767). LM is supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. Funding Information: AH reports consultancy for Ferring with respect to the development of a lifestyle app. BWM is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). BWM reports personal fees from ObsEva and Merck, and travel support from Merck, outside the submitted work. RW reports grants from the NHMRC. TM is supported by a Future Leader in Diabetes Award from the European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes/Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF19SA058975) and grants from the regional health authority in Central Norway. ATK reports personal fees from Merck for lectures. The other authors do not have competing interest to declare. Funding Information: This project is partly supported by the Centre for Research Excellence in Women’s Health in Reproductive Life (app1171592) through a project support grant. RW is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHRMC) Investigator grant (2009767). LM is supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Peer reviewedPublisher PD