Is IUI with ovarian stimulation effective in couples with unexplained subfertility?

STUDY QUESTION Does starting IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) within 1.5 years after completion of the fertility workup increase ongoing pregnancy rates compared to expectant management in couples with unexplained subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER IUI-OS is associated with higher chances of ongoing pregnancy compared to expectant management in unexplained subfertile couples, specifically those with poor prognoses of natural conception, i.e. <15% over 6 months or <25% over 1 year. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY IUI-OS is often the first-line treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Two randomized controlled trials compared IUI-OS to expectant management using different thresholds for the prognosis of natural conception as inclusion criteria and found conflicting results. A cohort of couples with unexplained subfertility exposed to expectant management and IUI-OS offers an opportunity to determine the chances of conception after both strategies and to evaluate whether the effect of IUI-OS depends on a couple's prognosis of natural conception. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A prospective cohort study on couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility who could start IUI-OS at any point after completion of the fertility workup, recruited in seven Dutch centres between January 2002 and February 2004. Decisions regarding treatment were subject to local protocols, the judgement of the clinician and the wishes of the couple. Couples with bilateral tubal occlusion, anovulation or a total motile sperm count <1 × 106 were excluded. Follow up was censored at the start of IVF, after the last IUI cycle or at last contact and truncated at a maximum of 1.5 years after the fertility workup. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The endpoint was time to conception leading to an ongoing pregnancy. We used the sequential Cox approach comparing in each month ongoing pregnancy rates over the next 6 months of couples who started IUI-OS to couples who did not. We calculated the prognosis of natural conception for individual couples, updated this over consecutive failed cycles and evaluated whether prognosis modified the effect of starting IUI-OS. We corrected for known predictors of conception using inverse probability weighting. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Data from 1896 couples were available. There were 800 couples whom had at least one IUI-OS cycle within 1.5 years post fertility workup of whom 142 couples conceived (rate: 0.50 per couple per year, median follow up 4 months). The median period between fertility workup completion and starting IUI-OS was 6.5 months. Out of 1096 untreated couples, 386 conceived naturally (rate: 0.31 per couple per year, median follow up 7 months). Starting IUI-OS was associated with a higher chance of ongoing pregnancy by a pooled, overall hazard ratio of 1.96 (95% CI: 1.47-2.62) compared to expectant management. The effect of treatment was modified by a couple's prognosis of achieving natural conception (P = 0.01), with poorer prognoses or additional failed natural cycles being associated with a stronger effect of treatment. The predicted 6-month ongoing pregnancy rate for a couple with a prognosis of 25% at completion of the fertility workup over the next six cycles (~40% over 1 year) was 25% (95% CI: 21-28%) for expectant management and 24% (95% CI: 9-36%) when starting IUI-OS directly. For a couple with a prognosis of 15% (25% over 1 year), these predicted rates were 17% (95% CI: 15-19%) for expectant management and 24% (95% CI: 15-32%) for starting IUI-OS. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The effect estimates are based on a prospective cohort followed up for 1.5 years after completion of the fertility workup. Although we balanced the known predictors of conception between treated and untreated couples using inverse probability weighting, observational data may be subject to residual confounding. The results need to be confirmed in external datasets. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS These results explain the discrepancies between previous trials that compared IUI-OS to expectant management, but further studies are required to establish the threshold at which IUI-OS is (cost-)effective. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was facilitated by (Grant 945/12/002) from ZonMW, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, The Hague, The Netherlands. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. S.B. reports acting as Editor-in-Chief of HROpen. The other authors have no conflicts of interest.

[1]  Julie Brown,et al.  Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation versus expectant management for unexplained infertility (TUI): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised, controlled, two-centre trial , 2017, The Lancet.

[2]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Constructing the crystal ball: how to get reliable prognostic information for the management of subfertile couples , 2017, Human reproduction.

[3]  J. W. van der Steeg,et al.  Natural conception: repeated predictions over time , 2017, Human reproduction.

[4]  Issa J Dahabreh,et al.  Using group data to treat individuals: understanding heterogeneous treatment effects in the age of precision medicine and patient-centred evidence. , 2016, International journal of epidemiology.

[5]  A. Domar,et al.  The impact of stress on fertility treatment , 2016, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.

[6]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Is IVF-served two different ways-more cost-effective than IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation? , 2015, Human reproduction.

[7]  E. Stuart,et al.  Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Clinical prediction models to inform individualized decision-making in subfertile couples: a stratified medicine approach. , 2014, Human reproduction.

[9]  B. Mol,et al.  Ongoing pregnancy qualifies best as the primary outcome measure of choice in trials in reproductive medicine: an opinion paper. , 2014, Fertility and sterility.

[10]  J A Land,et al.  Chlamydia antibody testing and diagnosing tubal pathology in subfertile women: an individual patient data meta-analysis. , 2011, Human reproduction update.

[11]  P. Austin An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies , 2011, Multivariate behavioral research.

[12]  Hansjakob Furrer,et al.  A sequential Cox approach for estimating the causal effect of treatment in the presence of time‐dependent confounding applied to data from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  C. Farquhar,et al.  Measuring outcomes in fertility trials: can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates? , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[14]  T. VanderWeele On the Distinction Between Interaction and Effect Modification , 2009, Epidemiology.

[15]  Stephen R Cole,et al.  Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. , 2008, American journal of epidemiology.

[16]  J. W. van der Steeg,et al.  External validation of a prediction model for an ongoing pregnancy after intrauterine insemination. , 2007, Fertility and sterility.

[17]  J. Habbema,et al.  Pregnancy is predictable: a large-scale prospective external validation of the prediction of spontaneous pregnancy in subfertile couples. , 2007, Human reproduction.

[18]  J. Habbema,et al.  Intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation versus expectant management for couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis: a randomised clinical trial , 2006, The Lancet.

[19]  C. Gnoth,et al.  Definition and prevalence of subfertility and infertility. , 2005, Human reproduction.

[20]  S. Daya Life table (survival) analysis to generate cumulative pregnancy rates in assisted reproduction: are we overestimating our success rates? , 2005, Human reproduction.

[21]  J. Habbema,et al.  Two new prediction rules for spontaneous pregnancy leading to live birth among subfertile couples, based on the synthesis of three previous models. , 2004, Human reproduction.

[22]  J. Habbema,et al.  Prediction of an ongoing pregnancy after intrauterine insemination. , 2004, Fertility and sterility.

[23]  J. Habbema,et al.  Towards less confusing terminology in reproductive medicine: a proposal. , 2004, Fertility and sterility.

[24]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[25]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[26]  J. Kremer,et al.  The relative contribution of IVF to the total ongoing pregnancy rate in a subfertile cohort. , 2010, Human reproduction.

[27]  J. Sims Intrauterine insemination. , 2009, Human reproduction update.

[28]  L. J. Wei,et al.  Regression analysis of multivariate incomplete failure time data by modeling marginal distributions , 1989 .