Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London (Hammersmith Campus), Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK.
Medical School, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
BMC Womens Health. 2023 Oct 27;23(1):557. doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02717-1.
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.
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.
不明原因不孕占英国不孕原因的 25%。通常会寻求宫腔内人工授精(IUI)或体外受精(IVF)等积极的干预方法。尽管英国国家卫生与保健优化研究所(NICE)建议将 IVF 用于不明原因的不孕,但这一建议引发了持续的争论,很少有生育诊所停止将 IUI 作为首选一线治疗方法。与 NICE 不同的是,欧洲人类生殖与胚胎学学会(ESHRE)在 2023 年 8 月发布的最新指南支持将 IUI 作为一线治疗方法。这些干预措施背后缺乏高质量的证据,目前的文献提供了相互矛盾的结果。
本综述旨在提供文献综述,探讨在当前指南的背景下,对于不明原因不孕的夫妇,IUI 或 IVF 应作为一线治疗方法。
评估两种治疗方法疗效的主要结局是活产(LB)率。次要结局是临床妊娠(CP)和持续妊娠(OP)率。于 2022 年 1 月对 4 个数据库(Ovid MEDLINE、EMBASE、孕产妇与婴儿护理和 Cochrane 图书馆)进行了全面的文献检索。在去除重复项、摘要筛选和全文筛选后,共选择了 34 篇论文。
讨论/结论:本综述强调了在检查 IUI 和 IVF 治疗的妊娠结局时,文献中存在很大的差异。有证据表明,IUI 使 LB 和 CP 率增加了 3 倍,而与期待治疗相比。比较 IUI 与 IVF 的文献则不太确定。综述发现文献暗示 IVF 应该作为一线治疗方法,但由于缺乏高质量的随机对照试验(RCT),以及确定的研究存在异质性和缺乏针对>40 岁女性的研究,因此需要进一步进行大型 RCT。提供 IUI 加卵巢刺激(IUI-OS)或 IVF 的决定应基于患者的预后因素。我们建议,对于<38 岁、预后良好的不明原因不孕女性,可以将 IUI-OS 作为一线治疗方法,对于>38 岁的患者,可以首先提供 IVF。应适当为患者提供咨询,以实现知情决策。