Intracervical insemination versus intrauterine insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is intracervical insemination (ICI) non-inferior to IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: ICI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in terms of live birth. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Both ICI and IUI in the natural cycle are performed as first-line treatments in women who are eligible for donor sperm treatment. High-quality data on the effectiveness of ICI versus IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an open-label multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial in the Netherlands and Belgium. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We randomly allocated women who were eligible for donor sperm treatment with cryopreserved donor semen to six cycles of ICI in the natural cycle or six cycles of IUI in the natural cycle. The primary outcome was conception within 8 months after randomization leading to a live birth. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and time to conception leading to live birth. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CI. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the 95% RD CI was <-12%. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between June 2014 and February 2019, we included 421 women, of whom 211 women were randomly allocated to ICI and 210 to IUI. Of the 211 women allocated to ICI, 2 women were excluded, 126 women completed treatment according to protocol and 75 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Of the 210 women allocated to IUI, 3 women were excluded, 140 women completed treatment according to protocol and 62 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Mean female age was 34 years (SD ±4) in both interventions. Conception leading to live birth occurred in 51 women (24%) allocated to ICI and in 81 women (39%) allocated to IUI (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.84). This corresponds to an absolute RD of -15%; 95% CI: -24% to -6.9%, suggesting inferiority of ICI. ICI also resulted in a lower live birth rate over time (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.82). Our per-protocol analysis showed that, within the 8 months treatment horizon, 48 women (38%) had live births after ICI and 79 women (56%) had live births after IUI (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52-0.88; RD -18%, 95% CI: -30% to -6%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was non-blinded owing to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since ICI in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in the natural cycle with cryopreserved donor sperm in terms of live birth rate, IUI is the preferred treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw project number 837002407). B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437), reports consultancy for ObsEva and has received research funding from Guerbet, Ferring and Merck. The other authors do not declare a COI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4462. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 11 March 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 03 June 2014.

Intrauterine insemination or intracervical insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle: a cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does intrauterine insemination in the natural cycle lead to better pregnancy rates than intracervical insemination (ICI) in the natural cycle in women undergoing artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm. SUMMARY ANSWER: In a large cohort of women undergoing artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm, there was no substantial beneficial effect of IUI in the natural cycle over ICI in the natural cycle. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: At present, there are no studies comparing IUI in the natural cycle versus ICI in the natural cycle in women undergoing artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a retrospective cohort study among all eight sperm banks in the Netherlands. We included all women who underwent artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle between January 2009 and December 2010. We compared time to ongoing pregnancy in the first six cycles of IUI and ICI, after which controlled ovarian stimulation was commenced. Ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) over time were compared using life tables. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the chances of reaching an ongoing pregnancy after IUI or ICI adjusted for female age and indication. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included 1843 women; 1163 women underwent 4269 cycles of IUI and 680 women underwent 2345 cycles of ICI with cryopreserved donor sperm. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline characteristics were equally distributed (mean age 34.0 years for the IUI group versus 33.8 years for the ICI group), while in the IUI group, there were more lesbian women than in the ICI group (40.6% for IUI compared with 31.8% for ICI). Cumulative OPRs up to six treatment cycles were 40.5% for IUI and 37.9% for ICI. This corresponds with a hazard rate ratio of 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.23] after controlling for female age and indication. Increasing female age was associated with a lower OPR, in both the IUI and ICI groups with a hazard ratio for ongoing pregnancy of 0.94 per year (95% CI 0.93-0.97). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is prone to selection bias due to its retrospective nature. As potential confounders such as parity and duration of subfertility were not registered, the effect of these potential confounders could not be evaluated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In women inseminated with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle, we found no substantial benefit of IUI over ICI. A randomized controlled trial with economic analysis alongside, it is needed to allow a more definitive conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was used and no conflicts of interest are declared.

[Artificial insemination with donor sperm in the Netherlands: future-proof?]. / Kunstmatige inseminatie met donorsperma in Nederland: toekomstbestendig?

In recent years much has changed in care for artificial insemination with donor sperm (AID). Since new laws and regulations were implemented, a large number of sperm banks have closed and the total number of sperm donors and their availability have decreased. Long waiting times and the use of sperm donors recruited by foreign commercial sperm banks can indicate a shortage of sperm donors. The fact that the internet offers women the possibility of ordering donor sperm and starting treatment without the intervention of a sperm bank means that future donor-conceived children may be prevented from obtaining the identity of their sperm donor as stipulated in the Dutch law on donor information in the context of artificial insemination. In order to comply with this law, an active recruitment policy is needed for Dutch sperm donors, to prevent waiting lists and treatments outside Dutch sperm banks. Only then can current AID care be guaranteed in the Netherlands in the future.

Counselling on disclosure of gamete donation to donor offspring:a search for facts.

BACKGROUND: High quality counseling of potential parents is needed in the process of disclosure to donor offspring, which is important for the child and for family relationships. We performed a search for facts to identify the role of counseling in couples undergoing gamete donation. METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed, EMBASE and Psychinfo. Studies were included if they reported on counseling in gamete donation. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included. Twelve studies stated that counselling was offered. The reported studies reflected no consensus about when and how counselling in gamete donation should be offered and no theoretical background of the disclosure/ secrecy issue. About 50% of the parents expressed the need for guidance and support of a counsellor. Special concerns were the disclosure issue and the future contact with the donor. Parents did not receive the guidance and support they needed in the disclosure process after treatment. CONCLUSION: Empirical knowledge on counselling is lacking. This review demonstrates the need to know more precisely at what moments couples should be counselled, and which specific information and guidelines couples need to receive to be more confident in the disclosure process to donor offspring.