Does ovarian hyperstimulation in intrauterine insemination for cervical factor subfertility improve pregnancy rates?

Background: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) can be performed with or without controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). Studies in which the additional benefit of COH on IUI for cervical factor subfertility is assessed are lacking. We assessed whether COH in IUI improved pregnancy rates in cervical factor subfertility. Methods: We performed a historical cohort study among couples with cervical factor subfertility, treated with IUI. A cervical factor was diagnosed by a well-timed, non-progressive post-coital test with normal semen parameters. We compared ongoing pregnancy rate per cycle in groups treated with IUI with or without COH. We tabulated ongoing pregnancy rates per cycle number and compared the effectiveness of COH by stratified univariable analysis. Results: We included 181 couples who underwent 330 cycles without COH and 417 cycles with COH. Ongoing pregnancy rates in IUI cycles without and with COH were 9.7% and 12.7%, respectively (odds ratio 1.4; 95% confidence interval 0.85-2.2). The pregnancy rates in IUI without COH in cycles 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 14%, 11%, 6% and 15%, respectively. For IUI with COH, these rates were 17%, 15%, 14% and 16%, respectively. Conclusions: Although our data indicate that COH improves the pregnancy rate over IUI without COH, IUI without COH generates acceptable pregnancy rates in couples with cervical factor subfertility. Since IUI without COH bears no increased risk for multiple pregnancy, this treatment should be seriously considered in couples with cervical factor subfertility

Aspirin alone or combined with low-molecular-weight heparin in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage, a randomised placebo-controlled trial

The pathogenesis, clinical presentation and therapy of arterial and venous vascular disorder

Identifying subfertile ovulatory women for timely tubal patency testing: A clinical decision rule based on medical history

Background: The aim of tubal testing is to identify women with bilateral tubal pathology in a timely manner, so they can be treated with IVF or tubal surgery. At present, it is unclear for which women early tubal testing is indicated, and in whom it can be deferred. Methods: Data on 3716 women who underwent tubal patency testing as a part of their routine fertility workup were used to relate elements in their medical history to the presence of tubal pathology. With multivariable logistic regression, we constructed two diagnostic models. One in which tubal disease was defined as occlusion and/or severe adhesions of at least one tube, whereas in a second model, tubal disease was defined as the presence of bilateral abnormalities. Results: Both models discriminated moderately well between women with and women without tubal disease with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.63-0.68) for any tubal pathology and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.65-0.71) for bilateral tubal pathology, respectively. However, the models could make an almost perfect distinction between women with a high and a low probability of tubal pathology. A decision rule in the form of a simple diagnostic score chart was developed for application of the models in clinical practice. Conclusions: In conclusion, the present study provides two easy to use decision rules that can accurately express a woman's probability of (severe) tubal pathology at the couple's first consultation. They could be used to select women for tubal testing more efficiently

Implementing targeted expectant management in fertility care using prognostic modelling: a cluster randomized trial with a multifaceted strategy

Item does not contain fulltextSTUDY QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on improving the adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management for couples with unexplained infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: The multifaceted implementation strategy did not significantly increase adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management compared to care as usual. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) with or without ovarian hyperstimulation has no beneficial effect compared to no treatment for 6 months after the fertility work-up for couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis of natural conception. Therefore, various professionals and policy makers have advocated the use of prognostic profiles and expectant management in guideline recommendations. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cluster randomized controlled trial in 25 clinics in the Netherlands was conducted between March 2013 and May 2014. Clinics were randomized between the implementation strategy (intervention, n = 13) and care as usual (control, n = 12). The effect of the implementation strategy was evaluated by comparing baseline and effect measurement data. Data collection was retrospective and obtained from medical record research and a patient questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 544 couples were included at baseline and 485 at the effect measurement (247 intervention group/238 control group). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Guideline adherence increased from 49 to 69% (OR 2.66; 95% CI 1.45-4.89) in the intervention group, and from 49 to 61% (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.38-3.00) in the control group. Multilevel analysis with case-mix adjustment showed that the difference of 8% was not statistically significant (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.67-2.59). The ongoing pregnancy rate within six months after fertility work-up did not significantly differ between intervention and control group (25% versus 27%: OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.40-1.27). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: There is a possible selection bias, couples included in the study had a higher socio-economic status than non-responders. How this affects guideline adherence is unclear. Furthermore, when powering for this study we did not take into account the unexpected improvement of adherence in the control group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Generalization of our results to other countries with recommendations on expectant management might be questionable because barriers for expectant management can be very different in other countries. Furthermore, due to a large variation in improved adherence rate in the intervention group it will be interesting to further analyse the process of implementation in each clinic with a process evaluation on professionals and couples' exposure to and experiences with the strategy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 171203005). No competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch trial Register, www.trialregister.nl NTR3405. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 April 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 July 2012