Intrauterine insemination or in-vitro fertilisation in idiopathic subfertility and male subfertility: a randomised trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. A randomized trial of in vitro fertilization versus conventional treatment for infertility. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate optimal treatment for unexplained infertility: the fast track and standard treatment (FASTT) trial. A multicentre randomized controlled trial of expectant management versus IVF in women with Fallopian tube patency.
Couples affected by idiopathic subfertility or male subfertility have an estimated spontaneous conception rate of about 2% per cycle. Although various infertility treatments are available, counselling of a couple in their choice of treatment is difficult because of the lack of consistent data from good-quality comparative studies. We compared the results of treatment with intrauterine insemination (IUI) with those of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), and did a cost-effectiveness analysis.
                In a prospective, randomised, parallel trial, 258 couples with idiopathic subfertility or male subfertility were treated for a maximum of six cycles of either IUI in the spontaneous cycle (IUI alone), IUI after mild ovarian hyperstimulation, or IVF. The primary endpoint was a pregnancy resulting in at least one livebirth after treatment. Cost-effectiveness based on real costs was studied by Markov chain analysis.
                86 couples were assigned IUI alone, 85 IUI plus ovarian hyperstimulation, and 87 IVF. Ten couples dropped out before treatment began. Although the pregnancy rate per cycle was higher in the IVF group than in the IUI groups (12.2% vs 7.4% and 8.7%, respectively; p=0.09), the cumulative pregnancy rate for IVF was not significantly better than that for IUI. Couples in the IVF group were more likely than those in the IUI groups to give up treatment before their maximum of six attempts (37 [42%] drop-outs vs 13 [15%] and 14 [16%], respectively; p<0.01). The woman's age was the only factor that influenced a couple's chance of success. IUI was a more cost-effective treatment than IVF (costs per pregnancy resulting in at least one livebirth 8423-10661 Dutch guilders [US$4511-5710] for IUI vs 27409 Dutch guilders [US$14679] for IVF).
                Couples with idiopathic or male subfertility should be counselled that IUI offers the same likelihood of successful pregnancy as IVF, and is a more cost-effective approach. IUI in the spontaneous cycle carries fewer health risks than does IUI after mild hormonal stimulation and is therefore the first-choice treatment. To evaluate the effectiveness of IVF in couples with infertility.
                Two hundred forty-five consecutive couples with infertility were randomized to receive one cycle of IVF treatment (experimental group) or to wait for a period of 6 months before receiving IVF treatment, during which time other infertility treatments could have been undertaken (control group).
                Patients were referred to the Fertility Clinic at Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals, a university-associated institution in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, in which IVF has been offered to couples since 1984.
                Couples with infertility (mean duration of 65 months) not corrected by conventional treatment. They came from all socioeconomic classes, and the costs of IVF treatment, except medication, were covered by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.
                Pregnancy was confirmed by ultrasound documentation of a gestational sac or histologic examination of tissue. Outcomes included livebirth, spontaneous abortion, and ectopic pregnancy. The overall pregnancy rate (PR) and the interval-to-pregnancy duration were compared in each group.
                Univariate analysis demonstrated a significant beneficial effect of IVF treatment in patients with bilateral severe tubal disease. Although in other diagnostic categories the crude and cumulative PRs in the experimental group were higher than in the control group, the differences did not reach statistical significance. Among the early IVF group, those with endometriosis had significantly more pregnancies when compared with other diagnostic categories. Although IVF increases the likelihood of pregnancy by 40% with severe tubal disease, the overall 31% increase associated with IVF was not statistically significant.
                There was a significant difference in favor of treatment in patients with severe bilateral tubal disease. For couples with other causes of infertility, the confidence limits around the treatment effect included unity. To reject the null hypothesis of no treatment effect, a larger sample size or a meta-analysis to combine the results of similar trials is required. To determine the value of gonadotropin/intrauterine insemination (FSH/IUI) therapy for infertile women aged 21-39 years.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Academic medical center associated with a private infertility center.
                Couples with unexplained infertility.
                Couples were randomized to receive either conventional treatment (n=247) with three cycles of clomiphene citrate (CC)/IUI, three cycles of FSH/IUI, and up to six cycles of IVF or an accelerated treatment (n=256) that omitted the three cycles of FSH/IUI.
                The time it took to establish a pregnancy that led to a live birth and cost-effectiveness, defined as the ratio of the sum of all health insurance charges between randomization and delivery divided by the number of couples delivering at least one live-born baby.
                An increased rate of pregnancy was observed in the accelerated arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.56) compared with the conventional arm. Median time to pregnancy was 8 and 11 months in the accelerated and conventional arms, respectively. Per cycle pregnancy rates for CC/IUI, FSH/IUI, and IVF were 7.6%, 9.8%, and 30.7%, respectively. Average charges per delivery were $9,800 lower (95% CI, $25,100 lower to $3,900 higher) in the accelerated arm compared to conventional treatment. The observed incremental difference was a savings of $2,624 per couple for accelerated treatment and 0.06 more deliveries.
                A randomized clinical trial demonstrated that FSH/IUI treatment was of no added value.
                Copyright (c) 2010 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Although observational studies suggest that IVF is more effective than no treatment for women with Fallopian tube patency, this has not been tested rigorously in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).
                Eligible consenting couples planning their first treatment cycle in five Canadian fertility clinics received either IVF, within 90 days of randomization, or a period of 90 days with no treatment. Random allocation was stratified by female age and sperm quality, and administered using numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Follow-up assessed live birth and associated morbidity.
                Sixty-eight couples were randomized to a first cycle of IVF and 71 couples had 3 months without treatment. The live birth rates were 20/68 (29%) and 1/71 (1%), respectively. The single delivery in the untreated group was of twins, as were six of the 20 IVF deliveries (30%). An average of 2.0 embryos were transferred and no triplet pregnancies resulted. The relative likelihood of delivery after allocation to IVF was 20.9-fold higher than after allocation to no treatment [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8-155]. The presence of abnormal sperm did not reduce this likelihood. Treating four women (95% CI 3-6) with one cycle of IVF is required to achieve a single additional birth.
                This study provides a valid and up-to-date comparison for policy makers and patients as they make choices around IVF, accurately measuring and confirming a major benefit from treatment.
IVF may be more effective than IUI+SO. Due to paucity of data from RCTs the effectiveness of IVF for unexplained infertility relative to expectant management, clomiphene citrate and IUI alone remains unproven. Adverse events and the costs associated with these interventions have not been adequately assessed.