Should IUI replace IVF as first-line treatment for unexplained infertility? A literature review.
IUI
IVF
Infertility
Ovarian stimulation
Pregnancy outcomes
Unexplained infertility
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 10 2023
27 10 2023
Historique:
received:
22
05
2023
accepted:
17
10
2023
medline:
30
10
2023
pubmed:
28
10
2023
entrez:
27
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Unexplained infertility accounts for 25% of infertility causes in the UK. Active intervention methods, such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF), are often sought. Despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommending IVF for unexplained infertility, this recommendation has generated an ongoing debate, with few fertility clinics discontinuing the use of IUI as the first-line management of choice. In contrast to NICE, recent guidance released from the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) in August 2023 supports the use of IUI as first-line. High-quality evidence behind such interventions is lacking, with current literature providing conflicting results. This review aims to provide a literature overview exploring whether IUI or IVF should be used as first-line treatment for couples with unexplained infertility, in the context of current guidelines. The primary outcome used to assess efficacy of both treatment methods is live birth (LB) rates. Secondary outcomes used are clinical pregnancy (CP) and ongoing pregnancy (OP) rates. A comprehensive literature search of 4 databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Maternity & Infant Care and the Cochrane Library were searched in January 2022. Upon removal of duplications, abstract screening, and full-text screening, a total of 34 papers were selected. This review highlights a large discrepancy in the literature when examining pregnancy outcomes of IUI and IVF treatments. Evidence shows IUI increases LB and CP rates 3-fold compared to expectant management. Literature comparing IUI to IVF is less certain. The review finds the literature implies IVF should be used for first-line management but the paucity of high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs), coupled with heterogeneity of the identified studies and a lack of research amongst women > 40 years warrants the need for further large RCTs. The decision to offer IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) or IVF should be based upon patient prognostic factors. We suggest that IUI-OS could be offered as first-line treatment for unexplained infertility for women < 38 years, with good prognosis, and IVF could be offered first to those > 38 years. Patients should be appropriately counselled to enable informed decision making.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Unexplained infertility accounts for 25% of infertility causes in the UK. Active intervention methods, such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF), are often sought. Despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommending IVF for unexplained infertility, this recommendation has generated an ongoing debate, with few fertility clinics discontinuing the use of IUI as the first-line management of choice. In contrast to NICE, recent guidance released from the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) in August 2023 supports the use of IUI as first-line. High-quality evidence behind such interventions is lacking, with current literature providing conflicting results.
AIMS
This review aims to provide a literature overview exploring whether IUI or IVF should be used as first-line treatment for couples with unexplained infertility, in the context of current guidelines.
METHODS
The primary outcome used to assess efficacy of both treatment methods is live birth (LB) rates. Secondary outcomes used are clinical pregnancy (CP) and ongoing pregnancy (OP) rates. A comprehensive literature search of 4 databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Maternity & Infant Care and the Cochrane Library were searched in January 2022. Upon removal of duplications, abstract screening, and full-text screening, a total of 34 papers were selected.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
This review highlights a large discrepancy in the literature when examining pregnancy outcomes of IUI and IVF treatments. Evidence shows IUI increases LB and CP rates 3-fold compared to expectant management. Literature comparing IUI to IVF is less certain. The review finds the literature implies IVF should be used for first-line management but the paucity of high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs), coupled with heterogeneity of the identified studies and a lack of research amongst women > 40 years warrants the need for further large RCTs. The decision to offer IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) or IVF should be based upon patient prognostic factors. We suggest that IUI-OS could be offered as first-line treatment for unexplained infertility for women < 38 years, with good prognosis, and IVF could be offered first to those > 38 years. Patients should be appropriately counselled to enable informed decision making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37891606
doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02717-1
pii: 10.1186/s12905-023-02717-1
pmc: PMC10612289
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
557Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 Apr;305(4):805-824
pubmed: 34636983
Fertil Steril. 2022 Jan;117(1):193-201
pubmed: 34620454
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 19;(11):CD003357
pubmed: 26583517
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Jan;35(1):99-106
pubmed: 28942518
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Mar 3;3:CD001838
pubmed: 32124980
Hum Reprod. 2019 Jun 4;34(6):1126-1138
pubmed: 31119290
BMJ. 2015 Jan 09;350:g7771
pubmed: 25576320
Fertil Steril. 2011 Jan;95(1):79-84
pubmed: 20659733
Hum Reprod. 2014 Jun;29(6):1211-7
pubmed: 24713124
Fertil Steril. 2020 Mar;113(3):636-641
pubmed: 32192596
Fertil Steril. 2014 Apr;101(4):994-1000
pubmed: 24534285
Hum Reprod Update. 2018 May 1;24(3):300-319
pubmed: 29452361
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017 Mar;210:342-347
pubmed: 28122315
Hum Fertil (Camb). 2015 Mar;18(1):48-53
pubmed: 25162601
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2022 Jan 17;26(1):22-27
pubmed: 34415121
Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 Mar;28(3):336-42
pubmed: 24456703
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Mar;112(3):208-10
pubmed: 21247564
Hum Reprod. 2017 May 1;32(5):1028-1032
pubmed: 28333222
Hum Reprod. 2019 Jan 01;34(1):84-91
pubmed: 30395266
Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Spring;1(2):69-76
pubmed: 18769664
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 May;305(5):1241-1254
pubmed: 34981203
Hum Reprod. 2015 Oct;30(10):2331-9
pubmed: 26269539
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Apr;54(2):156-61
pubmed: 24579923
Lancet. 2018 Feb 3;391(10119):441-450
pubmed: 29174128
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Sep 05;9:CD012692
pubmed: 31486548
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 Dec 01;12:768975
pubmed: 34925238
Fertil Steril. 2014 May;101(5):1205-8
pubmed: 24786740
Int J Reprod Med. 2016;2016:5817823
pubmed: 27738654
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022 Apr;42(3):472-477
pubmed: 34151684
Hum Reprod. 2012 Feb;27(2):444-50
pubmed: 22114108
Fertil Steril. 2011 Nov;96(5):1107-11.e1
pubmed: 21890134
Fertil Steril. 2020 Dec;114(6):1141-1148
pubmed: 33280720
Fertil Steril. 2014 May;101(5):1203-4
pubmed: 24786739
Hum Reprod. 2016 Dec;31(12):2665-2667
pubmed: 27664205
Fertil Steril. 2010 Aug;94(3):888-99
pubmed: 19531445
Hum Reprod. 2023 Oct 3;38(10):1881-1890
pubmed: 37599566
Fertil Steril. 2014 Jun;101(6):1574-81.e1-2
pubmed: 24796764
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020 Oct;49(8):101831
pubmed: 32535238
Hum Reprod. 2017 Jul 1;32(7):1439-1449
pubmed: 28472455
Fertil Steril. 2017 Jun;107(6):1329-1335.e2
pubmed: 28501361
Reprod Biomed Online. 2012 Feb;24(2):170-3
pubmed: 22197126
Minerva Ginecol. 2017 Dec;69(6):526-532
pubmed: 28598138
Hum Reprod. 2011 Feb;26(2):360-8
pubmed: 21163857
Hum Reprod. 2003 Feb;18(2):455-7
pubmed: 12571190