Interventions for unexplained infertility: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical management for unexplained infertility includes expectant management as well as active treatments, including ovarian stimulation (OS), intrauterine insemination (IUI), OS-IUI,  and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).Existing systematic reviews have conducted head-to-head comparisons of these interventions using pairwise meta-analyses. As this approach allows only the comparison of two interventions at a time and is contingent on the availability of appropriate primary evaluative studies, it is difficult to identify the best intervention in terms of effectiveness and safety. Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatments simultaneously by using both direct and indirect evidence and provides a hierarchy of these treatments, which can potentially better inform clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different approaches to clinical management (expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI) in couples with unexplained infertility. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, up to 6 September 2018, as well as reference lists, to identify eligible studies. We also searched trial registers for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing at least two of the following clinical management options in couples with unexplained infertility: expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF (or combined with ICSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts identified by the search strategy. We obtained the full texts of potentially eligible studies to assess eligibility and extracted data using standardised forms. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy, and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. We performed a network meta-analysis within a random-effects multi-variate meta-analysis model. We presented treatment effects by using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the network meta-analysis, we used Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs (4349 couples) in this systematic review and 24 RCTs (3983 couples) in a subsequent network meta-analysis. Overall, the certainty of evidence was low to moderate: the main limitations were imprecision and/or heterogeneity.Ten RCTs including 2725 couples reported on live birth. Evidence of differences between OS, IUI, OS-IUI, or IVF/ICSI versus expectant management was insufficient (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.43; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.94; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.88, 95 CI 0.81 to 4.38; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following expectant management is assumed to be 17%, the chance following OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF would be 9% to 28%, 11% to 33%, 15% to 37%, and 14% to 47%, respectively. When only including couples with poor prognosis of natural conception (3 trials, 725 couples) we found OS-IUI and IVF/ICSI increased live birth rate compared to expectant management (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.00 to 10.1; moderate-certainty evidence; OR 4.99, 95 CI 2.07 to 12.04; moderate-certainty evidence), while there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence).Eleven RCTs including 2564 couples reported on multiple pregnancy. Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.41; low-certainty evidence) and OS-IUI (OR 3.34 95% CI 1.09 to 10.29; moderate-certainty evidence) increased the odds of multiple pregnancy, and there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and expectant management/IUI (OR 2.66, 95% CI 0.68 to 10.43; low-certainty evidence). These findings suggest that if the chance of multiple pregnancy following expectant management or IUI is assumed to be 0.6%, the chance following OS, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI would be 0.6% to 5.0%, 0.6% to 5.4%, and 0.4% to 5.5%, respectively.Trial results show insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI for moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR 2.50, 95% CI 0.92 to 6.76; 5 studies; 985 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of moderate/severe OHSS following OS-IUI is assumed to be 1.1%, the chance following IVF/ICSI would be between 1.0% and 7.2%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence of differences in live birth between expectant management and the other four interventions (OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI). Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS may increase the odds of multiple pregnancy, and OS-IUI probably increases the odds of multiple pregnancy. Evidence on differences between IVF/ICSI and expectant management for multiple pregnancy is insufficient, as is evidence of a difference for moderate or severe OHSS between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI.

Recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles.

BACKGROUND: One of the various ovarian stimulation regimens used for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles is the use of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) in combination with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue. GnRH analogues prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges. Since they deprive the growing follicles of LH, the question arises as to whether supplementation with recombinant LH (rLH) would increase live birth rates. This is an updated Cochrane Review; the original version was published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) combined with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation compared to rFSH alone in women undergoing in-vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the following databases in June 2016: the Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ongoing trials registers, and checked the references of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in IVF/ISCI cycles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate and incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Secondary outcomes included ongoing pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate and cancellation rates (for poor response or imminent OHSS). MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 RCTs (8125 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods) and imprecision.Live birth rates: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in live birth rates (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.06; n = 499; studies = 4; I2 = 63%, very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 17% it will be between 15% and 30% using rLH combined with rFSH.OHSS: There may be little or no difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in OHSS rates (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.01; n = 2178; studies = 6; I2 = 10%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of OHSS following treatment with rFSH alone is 1%, it will be between 0% and 1% using rLH combined with rFSH.Ongoing pregnancy rate: The use of rLH combined with rFSH probably improves ongoing pregnancy rates, compared to rFSH alone (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42; participants = 3129; studies = 19; I2 = 2%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the ongoing pregnancy rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 21%, it will be between 21% and 27% using rLH combined with rFSH.Miscarriage rate: The use of rLH combined with rFSH probably makes little or no difference to miscarriage rates, compared to rFSH alone (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; n = 1711; studies = 13; I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 7%, the miscarriage rate following treatment with rLH combined with rFSH will be between 4% and 9%.Cancellation rates: There may be little or no difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in rates of cancellation due to low response (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.10; n = 2251; studies = 11; I2 = 16%, low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the risk of cancellation due to low response following treatment with rFSH alone is 7%, it will be between 4% and 7% using rLH combined with rFSH.We are uncertain whether use of rLH combined with rFSH improves rates of cancellation due to imminent OHSS compared to rFSH alone. Use of a fixed effect model suggested a benefit in the combination group (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89; n = 2976; studies = 8; I2 = 60%, very low quality evidence) but use of a random effects model did not support the conclusion that there was a difference between the groups (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.97). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear evidence of a difference between rLH combined with rFSH and rFSH alone in rates of live birth or OHSS. The evidence for these comparisons was of very low-quality for live birth and low quality for OHSS. We found moderate quality evidence that the use of rLH combined with rFSH may lead to more ongoing pregnancies than rFSH alone. There was also moderate-quality evidence suggesting little or no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of cancellation due to low response or imminent OHSS, but the evidence for these outcomes was of low or very low quality.We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to encourage or discourage stimulation regimens that include rLH combined with rFSH in IVF/ICSI cycles.

The risk of preterm birth of treated versus untreated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cervical surgery is associated with preterm birth (PTB) and neonatal morbidity. However, it is unknown whether this increased risk is due to the surgery itself or to the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) underlying the surgery. Our objective was to assess the risk for PTB in women with treated and untreated CIN. We performed an electronic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL for studies that reported on pregnancy outcome after treated and untreated CIN. The methodological quality was scored using the STROBE combined checklist for observational studies. We extracted data on PTB<37 weeks, very PTB<32 weeks, spontaneous PTB<37 weeks, (preterm) premature rupture of membranes ((P)PROM), perinatal mortality and section caesarean each before and after treatment for CIN. We used the Mantel-Haenszel method to estimate summarizing odds ratios. Our search identified 620 studies, of which 20 were reporting on pregnancy outcome for a total of 12,159,293 women. There were 20,832 women who gave birth after treatment for CIN before pregnancy, 52 women who gave birth after treatment for CIN during pregnancy, 64,237 women with CIN who gave birth before treatment, and 8,902,865 women who gave birth without CIN. Compared to women with untreated CIN, women treated for CIN before or during pregnancy, had a significantly higher risk of PTB<37 weeks (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-2.7). When comparing women treated for CIN before pregnancy (n=20,832) to women with untreated CIN (n=64,162), we found an OR of 1.4 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.85-2.3. Women treated during pregnancy had a clearly increased risk for PTB (OR 6.5, 95% CI 1.1-37), and (P)PROM (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4-2.2). In women with cervical surgery, the risks for spontaneous PTB<37 weeks (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.4), caesarean section (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.71-1.5) and perinatal mortality (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.38-2.8) were not increased. The increased risk of PTB in women who underwent cervical surgery for CIN is especially increased when performed during pregnancy. When performed before pregnancy the risk of PTB is increased, although insignificant.

The validity of the variable "NICU admission" as an outcome measure for neonatal morbidity: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether "neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission" is a valid surrogate outcome measure to assess neonatal condition in clinical studies. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary hospital in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Neonates admitted to NICU during a 10-year period. Inclusion was restricted to singletons born beyond 37 weeks of gestation, and admitted to NICU in the first 24 h for delivery-related morbidity. METHODS: Patient characteristics and admission data were compared for four groups based on the line of care during delivery, i.e. home birth (Ia), midwife-led hospital delivery (Ib), secondary care (II), tertiary care (III). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of neonates/infants that died during NICU admission, diagnosis on admission, treatment received and a Neonatal Therapeutic Intervention Score System (NTISS). RESULTS: We studied 776 newborns (Ia 52, Ib 25, II 160, III 512, 27 unknown). The mortality rate differed significantly (Ia 15%, Ib 12%, II 22%, III 1%, p < 0.01), as did the NTISS morbidity scores at admission [Ia 12.0 (6.0-23.0), Ib 8.5 (6.3-10.0), II 21.0 (15.0-30.0), III 6.0 (4.0-9.0); p < 0.01], diagnosis at admission, received treatment and the duration of admission. CONCLUSIONS: The severity of neonatal illness after 37 weeks of gestation differed depending on the line of care in which they were born, with neonates born in secondary care consistently having the highest morbidity, and those born in tertiary care having the lowest. NICU admission should not be used as an outcome measure for neonatal morbidity, specifically not when comparing different birth settings.

Does recruitment for multicenter clinical trials improve dissemination and timely implementation of their results? A survey study from the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND RESULTS: from clinical trials are often slowly implemented. We studied whether participation in multicenter clinical trials improves reported dissemination, convincement, and subsequent implementation of its results. METHODS: We sent a web-based questionnaire to gynecologists, residents, nurses, and midwives in all obstetrics and gynecology departments in the Netherlands. For nine trials in perinatology, reproductive medicine, and gynecologic oncology, we asked the respondents whether they had knowledge of the results, were convinced by the results, and what percentage of their patients were treated according to the results of these trials. We compared the level of knowledge, convincement, and reported implementation of results in practice for the nine trials for respondents who worked in hospitals that had recruited for a trial with respondents who worked in a hospital that had not recruited for that trial. The reported implementation was restricted to six trials that showed decisive results. Results We analyzed 202 questionnaires from 83 departments in obstetrics and gynecology in the Netherlands (93% of all departments). The percentage of respondents who had worked in a hospital that recruited for a specific study varied between 8% and 71% per study and was 28% on average. The relative risk (RR) for knowledge of the study result for respondents who had worked in a recruiting hospital was for all studies positive and varied between 1.1 and 3.3 (pooled RR: 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7-1.9). In general, health-care workers were convinced of trial results, independent of whether they had worked in a hospital that recruited for a trial or not (pooled RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.99-1.05). Reported implementation of trial's results, that is, less than 20% were treated with unfavorable treatment according to study results, was better in hospitals that had recruited for those trials (pooled RR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.02-1.19). CONCLUSION: Participation in these multicenter clinical trials was associated with better knowledge about the trial's results, with a minor improvement of the reported implementation of the study results.