Inge M. Custers

The influence of the number of follicles on pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The influence of multifollicular growth on pregnancy rates in subfertile couples undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) remained unclear. METHODS Relevant papers were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. A meta-analysis was performed and Mantel-Haenszel pooled odd ratios (ORs) and risk differences with 99% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to express the relation between the number of follicles and pregnancy rates. RESULTS We included 14 studies reporting on 11 599 cycles. The absolute pregnancy rate was 8.4% for monofollicular and 15% for multifollicular growth. The pooled OR for pregnancy after two follicles as compared with monofollicular growth was 1.6 (99% CI 1.3-2.0), whereas for three and four follicles, this was 2.0 and 2.0, respectively. Compared with monofollicular growth, pregnancy rates increased by 5, 8 and 8% when stimulating two, three and four follicles. The pooled OR for multiple pregnancies after two follicles was 1.7 (99% CI 0.8-3.6), whereas for three and four follicles this was 2.8 and 2.3, respectively. The risk of multiple pregnancies after two, three and four follicles increased by 6, 14 and 10%. The absolute rate of multiple pregnancies was 0.3% after monofollicular and 2.8% after multifollicular growth. CONCLUSIONS Multifollicular growth is associated with increased pregnancy rates in IUI with COH. Since in cycles with three or four follicles the multiple pregnancy rate increased without substantial gain in overall pregnancy rate, IUI with COH should not aim for more than two follicles. One stimulated follicle should be the goal if safety is the primary concern, whereas two follicles may be accepted after careful patient counselling.

Long-term outcome in couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis initially randomized between expectant management and immediate treatment

BACKGROUND We recently reported that treatment with intrauterine insemination and controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI-COS) did not increase ongoing pregnancy rates compared with expectant management (EM) in couples with unexplained subfertility and intermediate prognosis of natural conception. Long-term cost-effectiveness of a policy of initial EM is unknown. We investigated whether the recommendation not to treat during the first 6 months is valid, regarding the long-term effectiveness and cumulative costs. METHODS Couples with unexplained subfertility and intermediate prognosis of natural conception (n=253, at 26 public clinics, the Netherlands) were randomly allocated to 6 months EM or immediate start with IUI-COS. The couples were then treated according to local protocol, usually IUI-COS followed by IVF. We followed couples until 3 years after randomization and registered pregnancies and resources used. Primary outcome was time to ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcome was treatment costs. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Economic evaluation was performed from the perspective of the health care institution. RESULTS Time to ongoing pregnancy did not differ between groups (log-rank test P=0.98). Cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates were 72-73% for EM and IUI-COS groups, respectively [relative risk 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.1)]. Estimated mean costs per couple were € 3424 (95% CI € 880-€ 5968) in the EM group and € 6040 (95% CI € 4055-€ 8125) in the IUI-COS group resulting in an estimated saving of € 2616 per couple (95% CI € 385-€ 4847) in favour of EM. CONCLUSIONS In couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis of natural conception, initial EM for 6 months results in a considerable cost-saving with no delay in achieving pregnancy or jeopardizing the chance of pregnancy. Further comparisons between aggressive and milder forms of ovarian stimulation should be performed.

Immobilisation versus immediate mobilisation after intrauterine insemination: randomised controlled trial

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of 15 minutes of immobilisation versus immediate mobilisation after intrauterine insemination. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting One academic teaching hospital and six non-academic teaching hospitals. Participants Women having intrauterine insemination for unexplained, cervical factor, or male subfertility. Interventions 15 minutes of immobilisation or immediate mobilisation after insemination. Main outcome measure Ongoing pregnancy per couple. Results 391 couples were randomised; 199 couples were allocated to 15 minutes of immobilisation after intrauterine insemination, and 192 couples were allocated to immediate mobilisation (control). The ongoing pregnancy rate per couple was significantly higher in the immobilisation group than in the control group: 27% (n=54) versus 18% (34); relative risk 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 2.2 (crude difference in ongoing pregnancy rates: 9.4%, 1.2% to 17%). Live birth rates were 27% (53) in the immobilisation group and 17% (32) in the control group: relative risk 1.6, 1.1 to 2.4 (crude difference for live birth rates: 10%, 1.8% to 18%). In the immobilisation group, the ongoing pregnancy rates in the first, second, and third treatment cycles were 10%, 10%, and 7%. The corresponding rates in the mobilisation group were 7%, 5%, and 5%. Conclusion In treatment with intrauterine insemination, 15 minutes’ immobilisation after insemination is an effective modification. Immobilisation for 15 minutes should be offered to all women treated with intrauterine insemination. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53294431.

Intrauterine insemination: how many cycles should we perform?†

BACKGROUND In the past 20 years, various recommendations have been made about the maximum number of intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles that should be performed, because evidence underpinning a possible limit is lacking. METHODS We performed a multicentre, retrospective cohort analysis among couples treated with IUI up to nine cycles. Primary outcome measure was ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) per cycle. Cumulative OPRs (COPR) after three, six and nine cycles of IUI were calculated using life-table analysis. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables possibly affecting OPRs. RESULTS Overall, 3714 couples with male, cervical or unexplained subfertility underwent 15,303 cycles of IUI. In 70% of cycles, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) was used (51% clomiphene-citrate, 19% gonadotropins). Mean OPR rate was 5.6% per cycle. OPR in the seventh, eighth and ninth cycle were 5.1%, 6.7% and 4.6%, respectively. Taking censored patients into account, the calculated COPR was 18% after the third cycle, 30% after the seventh cycle and 41% after the ninth cycle. If censored patients were considered to have no chance of conception, a crude COPR of 25% after nine cycles was found. Multivariable regression analysis showed no significant impact of age, type of subfertility, diagnosis, use of hyperstimulation or cycle number on OPR after the sixth treatment cycle. CONCLUSIONS OPR in high-order IUI cycles are acceptable, and do not offer a rationale for cancellation before nine cycles. Using this type of very mild COH, it may be reasonable to conduct up to nine cycles.

Couples with unexplained subfertility and unfavorable prognosis: a randomized pilot trial comparing the effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with elective single embryo transfer versus intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian stimulation

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness of IVF with elective single embryo transfer (IVF-eSET) vs. IUI with controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI-COS) as an alternative treatment to reduce the risk for a multiple pregnancy. DESIGN Randomized pilot trial. SETTING Three academic and six teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. PATIENT(S) Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavorable prognosis for natural conception. INTERVENTION(S) One cycle of IVF-eSET or three cycles of IUI-COS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Ongoing pregnancy per couple. RESULT(S) We randomly allocated 116 women to IVF-eSET (n = 58) or IUI-COH (n = 58). There were 14 ongoing pregnancies (24%) in the IVF-eSET group and 12 pregnancies (21%) in the IUI-COS group (relative ratio 1.17; 95% confidence interval 0.60-2.30). There were two twin pregnancies in the IVF-eSET group (14%) and two twin pregnancies and one triplet pregnancy in the IUI-COH group (25%). CONCLUSION(S) In patients with unexplained or mild male subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, one cycle of IVF-eSET might be as effective as three cycles of IUI-COS as primary treatment. Elective single embryo transfer does not seem an effective strategy in preventing multiple pregnancies in this particular population. In the future a strict SET policy (i.e., compulsory SET) might be an option. Our trial provides evidence for the feasibility and highlights the importance of a large definitive trial to determine the effectiveness and side effects of both strategies.

IVF with planned single-embryo transfer versus IUI with ovarian stimulation in couples with unexplained subfertility: an economic analysis

Couples with unexplained subfertility are often treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation, which carries the risk of multiple pregnancies. An explorative randomized controlled trial was performed comparing one cycle of IVF with elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) versus three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, to assess the economic burden of the treatment modalities. The main outcome measures were ongoing pregnancy rates and costs. This study randomly assigned 58 couples to IVF-eSET and 58 couples to IUI-ovarian stimulation. The ongoing pregnancy rates were 24% in with IVF-eSET versus 21% with IUI-ovarian stimulation, with two and three multiple pregnancies, respectively. The mean cost per included couple was significantly different: €2781 with IVF-eSET and €1876 with IUI-ovarian stimulation (P<0.01). The additional costs per ongoing pregnancy were €2456 for IVF-eSET. In couples with unexplained subfertility, one cycle of IVF-eSET cost an additional €900 per couple compared with three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation, for no increase in ongoing pregnancy rates or decrease in multiple pregnancies. When IVF-eSET results in higher ongoing pregnancy rates, IVF would be the preferred treatment. Couples that have been trying to conceive unsuccessfully are often treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) and medication to improve egg production (ovarian stimulation). This treatment carries the risk of multiple pregnancies like twins. We performed an explorative study among those couples that had a poor prognosis for natural conception. One cycle of IVF with transfer of one selected embryo (elective single-embryo transfer, eSET) was compared with three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation. The aim of this study was to assess the economic burden of both treatments. The Main outcome measures were number of good pregnancies above 12weeks and costs. We randomly assigned 58 couples to IVF-eSET and 58 couples to IUI-ovarian stimulation. The ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable: 24% with IVF-eSET versus 21% with IUI-ovarian stimulation. There were two multiple pregnancies with IVF-eSET and three multiple pregnancies with IUI-ovarian stimulation. The mean cost per included couple was significantly different, €2781 with IVF-eSET and €1876 with IUI-ovarian stimulation. The additional costs per ongoing pregnancy were €2456 for IVF-eSET. In couples with unexplained subfertility, one cycle of IVF-eSET costed an additional €900 per couple compared to three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation, for no increase in ongoing pregnancy rates or decrease in multiple pregnancies. We conclude that IUI-ovarian stimulation is the preferred treatment to start with. When IVF-eSET results in a higher ongoing pregnancy rate (>38%), IVF would be the preferred treatment.

Timing oocyte collection in GnRH agonists down-regulated IVF and ICSI cycles: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND The evidence underpinning the timing of an oocyte collection in IVF or ICSI is limited. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the follicle diameter size of the dominant follicle on ongoing pregnancy rates. METHODS We conducted a randomized controlled trial, including women aged between 18 and 43 years who were scheduled for GnRH agonist down-regulated IVF/ICSI treatment in four assisted conception units. Women were randomized between timing oocyte collection when the leading follicle had a diameter of 22 mm or when the leading follicle had a diameter of 18 mm. The primary end-point was ongoing pregnancy, defined as a viable pregnancy at 12 weeks of gestation. RESULTS The trial had major problems with recruiting patients and after the planned 2 years of recruiting only half of the aimed 400 inclusions were obtained. We allocated 97 women to the 22-mm group and 93 women to the 18-mm group. In the 22-mm group more women reached an ongoing pregnancy (37 of 97 women, 38%) compared with the 18-mm group (22 of 93 women, 24%) resulting in a relative risk of 1.6 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-2.5]. In a logistic regression analysis, the timing of oocyte collection, adjusted for female age, IVF/ICSI and centre, was still associated with ongoing pregnancy, although the association was no longer statistically significant (OR: 2.0; 95% CI: 0.96-4.2) CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that delaying the timing of oocyte collection in IVF or ICSI results in better ongoing pregnancy rates, however, larger studies have to be performed to prove or refute these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN24724622.

Prognostic profiles and the effectiveness of assisted conception: secondary analyses of individual patient data

BACKGROUND At present, it is unclear which treatment strategy is best for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. We hypothesized that the prognostic profile influences the effectiveness of assisted conception. We addressed this issue by analysing individual patient data (IPD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS We performed an IPD analysis of published RCTs on treatment strategies for subfertile couples. Eligible studies were identified from Cochrane systematic reviews and we also searched Medline and EMBASE. The authors of RCTs that compared expectant management (EM), intracervical insemination (ICI), intrauterine insemination (IUI), all three with or without controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and IVF in couples with unexplained or male subfertility, and had reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy as an outcome measure, were invited to share their data. For each individual patient the chance of natural conception was calculated with a validated prognostic model. We constructed prognosis-by-treatment curves and tested whether there was a significant interaction between treatment and prognosis. RESULTS We acquired data from 8 RCTs, including 2550 couples. In three studies (n = 954) the more invasive treatment strategies tended to be less effective in couples with a high chance of natural conception but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P-value for interaction between prognosis and treatment outcome were 0.71, 0.31 and 0.19). In one study (n = 932 couples) the strategies with COS (ICI and IUI) led to higher pregnancy rates than unstimulated strategies (ICI 8% versus 15%, IUI 13% versus 22%), regardless of prognosis (P-value for interaction in all comparisons >0.5), but at the expense of a high twin rate in the COS strategies (ICI 6% versus 23% and IUI 3% versus 30%, respectively). In two studies (n = 373 couples), the more invasive treatment strategies tended to be more effective in couples with a good prognosis but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P-value for interaction: 0.38 and 0.68). In one study (n = 253 couples) the differential effect of prognosis on treatment effect was limited (P-value for interaction 0.52), perhaps because prognosis was incorporated in the inclusion criteria. The only study that compared EM with IVF included 38 couples, too small for a precise estimate. CONCLUSIONS In this IPD analysis of couples with unexplained or male subfertility, we did not find a large differential effect of prognosis on the effectiveness of fertility treatment with IUI, COS or IVF.

The prognostic profile of subfertile couples and treatment outcome after expectant management, intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilisation: a study protocol for the meta-analysis of individual patient data

Please cite this paper as: Boogaard N van den, Hompes P, Barnhart K, Bhattacharya S, Custers I, Coutifaris C, Goverde A, Guzick D, Litvak P, Steures P, Veen F van der, Bossuyt P, Mol B. The prognostic profile of subfertile couples and treatment outcome after expectant management, intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilisation: a study protocol for the meta‐analysis of individual patient data. BJOG 2012;119:953–957.

Long-term follow up of couples initially randomized between immobilization and immediate mobilization subsequent to IUI

A previous randomized clinical trial compared immobilization for 15 min with immediate mobilization subsequent to intrauterine insemination (IUI) and showed higher ongoing pregnancy rates in couples immobilizing subsequent to IUI. The current study compared the long-term effectiveness of immobilization subsequent to IUI. All couples (n = 391) included in the trial were followed for 3 years after randomization and pregnancies and treatments were recorded. After the initial trial period, couples in both groups were offered treatment according to local protocol. The primary outcome was an ongoing pregnancy during the 3 years after the initial trial. In this time period, there were 143 ongoing pregnancies in the immobilization group (n = 199 couples) and 112 ongoing pregnancies in the immediate mobilization group (n = 192). The ongoing pregnancy rates were 72% and 58%, respectively (relative risk 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4). The persistent significant difference in ongoing pregnancy rates underpins the importance of immobilization after IUI. There is no valid reason to withhold women from immobilizing for 15 min after IUI.