Anupa Nandi1, Gangopadhyay Raja2, Davinia White3, El-Toukhy Tarek3. 1. Assisted Conception Unit, Great Maze Pond, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust, London, SE1 9RT, UK. anupa.nandi@gmail.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Watford General Hospital, Hertfordshire, UK. 3. Assisted Conception Unit, Great Maze Pond, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: IUI + COH is widely used in cases of unexplained infertility before resorting to IVF. Debate continues about what should be the first-line treatment for couples with unexplained infertility. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review assessed the relative efficacy of IUI + COH compared with IVF in couples with unexplained infertility. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Embase, CIHNL, Pscy Info, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to November 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only RCTs published articles in full text with female patients aged 18-43 years and diagnosed with unexplained infertility were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors reviewed citations from primary search independently and any disagreement was resolved by mutual discussion and consultation with a third author. MAIN RESULT: In total, eight RCTs were included. The quality of evidence was moderate to low due to inconsistency across the trials and imprecision. The pooled result showed that IVF was associated with a statistically significant higher live birth rate (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01-2.32, P < 0.00001 I2 = 86%) with no significant difference in multiple pregnancy rate or OHSS rate. Sensitivity analysis based on women's age and a history of previous IUI or IVF treatment showed no significant difference in the live birth rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.15, I2 = 0%, 3 RCTs) in treatment-naïve women younger than 38 years. In women over 38 years, the live birth rates were significantly higher in the IVF group (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.16-4.0, I2 = 42%, 1 RCT). CONCLUSION: Further research using a standardised treatment protocol and taking into account important prognostic variables and cumulative live birth rates from fresh IVF and all sibling frozen embryos is required to further guide clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: IUI + COH is widely used in cases of unexplained infertility before resorting to IVF. Debate continues about what should be the first-line treatment for couples with unexplained infertility. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review assessed the relative efficacy of IUI + COH compared with IVF in couples with unexplained infertility. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Embase, CIHNL, Pscy Info, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to November 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only RCTs published articles in full text with female patients aged 18-43 years and diagnosed with unexplained infertility were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors reviewed citations from primary search independently and any disagreement was resolved by mutual discussion and consultation with a third author. MAIN RESULT: In total, eight RCTs were included. The quality of evidence was moderate to low due to inconsistency across the trials and imprecision. The pooled result showed that IVF was associated with a statistically significant higher live birth rate (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01-2.32, P < 0.00001 I2 = 86%) with no significant difference in multiple pregnancy rate or OHSS rate. Sensitivity analysis based on women's age and a history of previous IUI or IVF treatment showed no significant difference in the live birth rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.15, I2 = 0%, 3 RCTs) in treatment-naïve women younger than 38 years. In women over 38 years, the live birth rates were significantly higher in the IVF group (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.16-4.0, I2 = 42%, 1 RCT). CONCLUSION: Further research using a standardised treatment protocol and taking into account important prognostic variables and cumulative live birth rates from fresh IVF and all sibling frozen embryos is required to further guide clinical practice.
Authors: Janne-Meije van Weert; Janneke van den Broek; Jan Willem van der Steeg; Fulco van der Veen; Paul A Flierman; Ben W J Mol; Pieternel Steures Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Marlene B Goldman; Kim L Thornton; David Ryley; Michael M Alper; June L Fung; Mark D Hornstein; Richard H Reindollar Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Hossam Elzeiny; Claire Garrett; Manuela Toledo; Kate Stern; John McBain; Hugh William Gordon Baker Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: R I Tjon-Kon-Fat; A J Bensdorp; P M M Bossuyt; C Koks; G J E Oosterhuis; A Hoek; P Hompes; F J Broekmans; H R Verhoeve; J P de Bruin; R van Golde; S Repping; B J Cohlen; M D A Lambers; P F van Bommel; E Slappendel; D Perquin; J Smeenk; M J Pelinck; J Gianotten; D A Hoozemans; J W M Maas; H Groen; M J C Eijkemans; F van der Veen; B W J Mol; M van Wely Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Rui Wang; Nora A Danhof; Raissa I Tjon-Kon-Fat; Marinus Jc Eijkemans; Patrick Mm Bossuyt; Monique H Mochtar; Fulco van der Veen; Siladitya Bhattacharya; Ben Willem J Mol; Madelon van Wely Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-09-05
Authors: A J Bensdorp; R I Tjon-Kon-Fat; P M M Bossuyt; C A M Koks; G J E Oosterhuis; A Hoek; P G A Hompes; F J M Broekmans; H R Verhoeve; J P de Bruin; R van Golde; S Repping; B J Cohlen; M D A Lambers; P F van Bommel; E Slappendel; D Perquin; J M Smeenk; M J Pelinck; J Gianotten; D A Hoozemans; J W M Maas; M J C Eijkemans; F van der Veen; B W J Mol; M van Wely Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-01-09