IVF/ICSI split does not prevent failed fertilization or improve live birth (LB) rates in unexplained infertility (UI)

2013 ◽  
Vol 100 (3) ◽  
pp. S235-S236
Author(s):  
O.A. Asemota ◽  
C.M. Igel ◽  
M. Zameni ◽  
H.J. Lieman ◽  
S.K. Jindal ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
D K Nguyen ◽  
S OLeary ◽  
M A Gadalla ◽  
R Wang ◽  
W Li ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question Can in couples with unexplained infertility a prognosis-tailored management strategy, that delays treatment if natural conception prospects are good, reduce costs without affecting live-birth rate? Summary answer In couples with unexplained infertility, use of a prognostic tool for natural conception followed by expectant management in good-prognosis couples is cost-effective. What is known already Few countries have guidelines for the assessment of the likelihood of natural conception to determine access to publicly funded ART. In the Netherlands and New-Zealand, couples with unexplained infertility who have a good prognosis for natural conception are encouraged to delay starting ART. However, the cost-effectiveness of this prognosis-tailored treatment strategy has not been determined. Study design, size, duration We studied couples with unexplained infertility to compare a prognosis-tailored strategy to care-as-usual. In the prognosis-tailored strategy, couples were assessed using Hunault’s prediction model. In good-prognosis couples (12-months natural conception >40%), outcomes without ART were modelled by censoring observations after start of ART. We then assumed that poor-prognosis couples (<40% natural conception) were treated, while good-prognosis couples delayed the start of treatment for 12 months. Data for the care-as-usual model were based on real observations. Participants/materials, setting, methods We studied 272 couples with unexplained infertility. Costs of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-uterine insemination (IUI) were calculated based on the out-of-pocket costs and Australian Medicare costs. In a cost-effectiveness model, we compared costs and effects of both strategies. Main results and the role of chance The prognostic model classified 272 couples with unexplained infertility as favourable (N = 107 (39.3%) or unfavourable prognosis (N = 165 (60.7%)) for natural conception. In the prognosis-tailored strategy, the cumulative live-birth rate was 71.1% (95% CI 64.7% - 76.4%) while the number of ART cycles was 393 (353 IVF; 40 IUI). In care-as-usual strategy, the cumulative conception rate leading to live-birth for the cohort of 272 couples, who underwent a total of 398 IVF cycles and 48 IUI cycles, was 72.1% (95% CI 65.7% - 77.4%). Mean time to conception leading to live birth was 388 days in the prognosis-tailored strategy and 419 days in the care-as-usual strategy. This translated for the 272 couples into potential savings of 45 IVF cycles and eight IUI cycles, which cost a total of AUD$ 125,817 for out-of-pocket and AUD$ 264,497 for Australian Medicare. The average cost savings per couple was AUD$ 1,435 (out-of-pocket AUD$ 463 per couple and Australian Medicare AUD$ 962 per couple). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was calculated as the total costs per additional live-births, was AUD$ 143,497 per additional live birth. Limitations, reasons for caution This study was limited to couples at a single IVF clinic. The modelling was also based on several key assumptions, particularly the number of fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles for each couple. Wider implications of the findings: Our results show that in couples with unexplained infertility the use of a prognostic model guiding the start of an IVF-treatment reduces costs without compromising live birth rates. Trial registration number Not applicable


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Prentice ◽  
Lynn Sadler ◽  
Sarah Lensen ◽  
Melissa Vercoe ◽  
Jack Wilkinson ◽  
...  

Abstract STUDY QUESTIONS In couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis of natural conception, are four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) non-inferior to one completed cycle of IVF for the outcome of cumulative live birth? Are four cycles of IUI-OS associated with a lower cost per live birth compared to one completed cycle of IVF? Will four cycles of IUI-OS followed by one complete cycle of IVF result in as many live births at lower cost per live birth, than two complete cycles of IVF? Will four cycles of IUI-OS followed by two complete cycles of IVF result in more live births at lower cost per live birth, than two complete cycles of IVF alone? WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY IUI is widely used in the USA, the UK and Europe as a low cost, less invasive alternative to IVF for couples with unexplained infertility. Although three to six cycles of IUI were comparable to IVF in the three major studies carried out to date, gonadotrophin ovarian stimulation was used in the majority of cases, and this also resulted in a high multiple pregnancy rate in some studies. Ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate is known to have lower multiple pregnancy rates. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The FIIX study is a multicentre, open label, parallel, pragmatic non-inferiority randomized controlled trial of 580 couples with unexplained infertility comparing four cycles of IUI-OS with clomiphene citrate and one completed cycle of IVF. Variable block randomization stratified by age and clinic with electronic allocation will be used. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Couples with poor prognosis for natural conception and who are eligible for publicly funded fertility treatment in six fertility clinics in New Zealand. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Auckland Medical Research Fund (3718892/1119003), A+ Trust, Auckland District Health Board (A + 8479), Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust (3718514). No competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ACTRN12619001003167. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 15 July 2019 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT 02/08/2019


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siladitya Bhattacharya ◽  
Abha Maheshwari ◽  
Mariam Begum Ratna ◽  
Rik van Eekelen ◽  
Ben Willem Mol ◽  
...  

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Can we use prediction modelling to estimate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) related delay in starting IVF or ICSI in different groups of women? SUMMARY ANSWER Yes, using a combination of three different models we can predict the impact of delaying access to treatment by 6 and 12 months on the probability of conception leading to live birth in women of different age groups with different categories of infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Increased age and duration of infertility can prejudice the chances of success following IVF, but couples with unexplained infertility have a chance of conceiving naturally without treatment whilst waiting for IVF. The worldwide suspension of IVF could lead to worse outcomes in couples awaiting treatment, but it is unclear to what extent this could affect individual couples based on age and cause of infertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A population-based cohort study based on national data from all licensed clinics in the UK obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Register. Linked data from 9589 women who underwent their first IVF or ICSI treatment in 2017 and consented to the use of their data for research were used to predict livebirth. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Three prediction models were used to estimate the chances of livebirth associated with immediate treatment versus a delay of 6 and 12 months in couples about to embark on IVF or ICSI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE We estimated that a 6-month delay would reduce IVF livebirths by 0.4%, 2.4%, 5.6%, 9.5% and 11.8% in women aged <30, 30–35, 36–37, 38–39 and 40–42 years, respectively, while corresponding values associated with a delay of 12 months were 0.9%, 4.9%, 11.9%, 18.8% and 22.4%, respectively. In women with known causes of infertility, worst case (best case) predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle in women aged <30, 30–35, 36–37, 38–39 and 40–42 years varied between 31.6% (35.0%), 29.0% (31.6%), 23.1% (25.2%), 17.2% (19.4%) and 10.3% (12.3%) for tubal infertility and 34.3% (39.2%), 31.6% (35.3%) 25.2% (28.5%) 18.3% (21.3%) and 11.3% (14.1%) for male factor infertility. The corresponding values in those treated immediately were 31.7%, 29.8%, 24.5%, 19.0% and 11.7% for tubal factor and 34.4%, 32.4%, 26.7%, 20.2% and 12.8% in male factor infertility. In women with unexplained infertility the predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle were 41.0%, 36.6%, 29.4%, 22.4% and 15.1% in women aged <30, 30–35, 36–37, 38–39 and 40–42 years, respectively, compared to 34.9%, 32.5%, 26.9%, 20.7% and 13.2% in similar groups of women treated without any delay. The additional waiting period, which provided more time for spontaneous conception, was predicted to increase the relative number of babies born by 17.5%, 12.6%, 9.1%, 8.4% and 13.8%, in women aged <30, 30–35, 36–37, 38–39 and 40–42 years, respectively. A 12-month delay showed a similar pattern in all subgroups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Major sources of uncertainty include the use of prediction models generated in different populations and the need for a number of assumptions. Although the models are validated and the bases for the assumptions are robust, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of imprecision in our predictions. Therefore, our predicted live birth rates need to be validated in prospective studies to confirm their accuracy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS A delay in starting IVF reduces success rates in all couples. For the first time, we have shown that while this results in fewer babies in older women and those with a known cause of infertility, it has a less detrimental effect on couples with unexplained infertility, some of whom conceive naturally whilst waiting for treatment. Post-COVID 19, clinics planning a phased return to normal clinical services should prioritize older women and those with a known cause of infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No external funding was received for this study. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomics. S.B. is Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.


Author(s):  
Manish Maladkar ◽  
Chitra Tekchandani ◽  
Akshata Karchodi

Ovulation induction has been a major breakthrough in the management of female infertility since many decades. Letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor has been used as a potential therapy for ovulation induction. A large number of clinical evidences have been emerging which cite the beneficial role of Letrozole in conditions like anovulatory infertility, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), unexplained infertility and an incipient role in endometriosis- related infertility with regards to higher live-birth rates. Letrozole is a superior alternative to Clomiphene citrate (CC) which has been used conventionally as ovulation inducer. Clomiphene citrate has certain well-defined disadvantages, whereas Letrozole overcomes these limitations to a reasonable extent. The peripheral anti-estrogenic effect of CC leads to prolonged depletion of estrogens receptors, adversely affecting endometrial growth and development as well as quantity and quality of cervical mucus. Persistent blockade of estrogen receptor leads to CC resistance and is associated with reduced ovulation and pregnancy rates. Available evidences suggest Letrozole is superior to CC owing to the lack of persistent anti-estrogenic action due to its short half- life and lack of action on estrogen receptors. This typically leads to monofollicular growth and also higher live birth rates. The current evidences suggest that Letrozole can be placed as first line therapy for the management of infertility due to PCOS and unexplained infertility.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Kantarci ◽  
S Gule. Cekic ◽  
E Türkgeldi ◽  
S Yildiz ◽  
I Keles ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question Does the presence of endometrioma during ovarian stimulation affect blastulation and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR)? Summary answer Blastulation rates were similar in women with endometrioma compared to women without. Likewise, CPR were comparable. What is known already Although relationship of endometriosis and subfertility is well-established, its mechanism is still under investigation. Decreased oocyte quality, resulting from anatomical and/or inflammatory factors is one of the prominent culprits. Most studies regarding endometriosis and oocyte quality are highly heterogeneous and effect of endometriosis on oocyte quality is yet to be determined. Blastulation is thought as a surrogate marker for oocyte quality. Thus, it may be possible that detrimental effect of the presence of endometrioma during ovarian stimulation can be indirectly assessed by blastulation. Study design, size, duration Records of all women who underwent assisted reproductive technology treatment at Koc University Hospital Assisted Reproduction Unit between 2016 and October 2020 were screened for this retrospective study. All women who had endometrioma(s) during ovarian stimulation were included in the study group (EG) (n = 71). They were matched with women diagnosed with tubal factor or unexplained infertility who underwent oocyte pickup within the same period to form the control group (CG) (n = 104). Participants/materials, setting, methods All women underwent antagonist or long protocol. All embryos were cultured until blastocyst stage regardless of the number of oocytes or embryos available. Size/location of endometriomas, number of oocytes retrieved, number of available blastocysts, positive pregnancy test per cycle and clinical pregnancy rate per cycle were recorded. Blastulation rate was calculated as number of available blasts divided by the number of metaphase-II oocytes. Embryos were transferred in a fresh or artificially prepared frozen-thawed cycle. Main results and the role of chance There were 71 women in EG and 104 women in CG, which included 30 women with tubal and 74 with unexplained infertility. Median endometrioma size was 26 mm(22–33). Twenty-three patients in EG had history of endometrioma excision (31.3%). Median age [35.0 years (31.0–39.0) vs 34 (32.0–36.0), p = 0.26] and serum AMH levels [1.8 (1.1 - 4.2) vs 2.3 (1.3 - 3.7) ng/dL, p = 0.91] were similar in EG and CG, respectively. Body mass index in kg/m2 [21.8 (20.2–24.6) vs 24 (21.5–27.9), p < 0.01] and infertility duration in years [2 (1–2.6) vs 3 (2–5), p < 0.01] were significantly lower in EG. Number of retrieved oocytes [8 (5–12) vs 12 (7–15.8), p < 0.01)] and metaphase-II oocytes [6 (4–10) vs 8.5 (6–12), p < 0.01] were lower in EG group compared to CG group. However, blastulation rate per MII oocyte were similar between the EG and CG [(0.25 (0.20–0.41) vs 0.30 (0.14–0.50), respectively, p = 0.58]. Adjusted analysis for age and number of MII oocytes revealed similar finding. Positive pregnancy test per cycle was similar at 53.5% vs 61.5% in EG and CG, respectively (p = 0.3). CPR were similar between the EG and CG (45% vs 58%, respectively, p = 0.10). Limitations, reasons for caution Retrospective design, lack of live birth information are the main limitations of our study. Wider implications of the findings: Presence of endometrioma during ovarian stimulation does not seem to adversely affect blastulation rates. While this is reassuring regarding oocyte quality, further research is required to assess its effect on live birth. Trial registration number Not applicable


2015 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
pp. e97-e98
Author(s):  
K.R. Hansen ◽  
A.W. He ◽  
A.K. Styer ◽  
S. Butts ◽  
L. Engmann ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiina Murto ◽  
Kerstin Bjuresten ◽  
Britt-Marie Landgren ◽  
Anneli Stavreus-Evers

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document