Efficacy of superovulation and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of infertility. National Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network. Effectiveness of intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples with an isolated cervical factor: a randomized clinical trial. Intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation versus expectant management for couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis: a randomised clinical trial. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination for treating male subfertility: a controlled study.
Induction of superovulation with gonadotropins and intrauterine insemination are frequently used to treat infertility. We conducted a large, randomized, controlled clinical trial of these treatments.
                We studied 932 couples in which the woman had no identifiable infertility factor and the man had motile sperm. The couples were randomly assigned to receive intracervical insemination, intrauterine insemination, superovulation and intracervical insemination, or superovulation and intrauterine insemination. Treatment continued for four cycles unless pregnancy was achieved.
                The 231 couples in the group treated with superovulation and intrauterine insemination had a higher rate of pregnancy (33 percent) than the 234 couples in the intrauterine-insemination group (18 percent), the 234 couples in the group treated with superovulation and intracervical insemination (19 percent), or the 233 couples in the intracervical-insemination group (10 percent). Stratified, discrete-time Cox proportional-hazards analysis showed that the couples in the group treated with superovulation and intrauterine insemination were 3.2 times as likely to become pregnant as those in the intracervical-insemination group (95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 5.3) and 1.7 times as likely as those in the intrauterine-insemination group (95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 2.6). The couples in the intrauterine-insemination group and in the group treated with superovulation and intracervical insemination were nearly twice as likely to conceive as those in the intracervical-insemination group.
                Among infertile couples, treatment with induction of superovulation and intrauterine insemination is three times as likely to result in pregnancy as is intracervical insemination and twice as likely to result in pregnancy as is treatment with either superovulation and intracervical insemination or intrauterine insemination alone. After randomization of subfertile couples with an isolated cervical factor to intrauterine insemination for 6 months or expectant management for 6 months, 26 women (51%) vs. 16 women (33%) conceived, respectively. Of these pregnancies, 22 (43%) vs. 13 (27%) were ongoing (relative risk, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 2.8). There was one multiple pregnancy in the group that was allocated to intrauterine insemination. This trial suggests a beneficial effect of IUI in couples with an isolated cervical factor. Intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation is commonly used as first-line treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Since such treatment increases the risk of multiple pregnancy, a couple's chances of achieving an ongoing pregnancy without it should be considered to identify those most likely to benefit from treatment. We aimed to assess the incremental effectiveness of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation compared with expectant management in couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis of a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy.
                253 couples with unexplained subfertility and a 30-40% probability of a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy within 12 months were randomly assigned either intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for 6 months or expectant management for 6 months. The primary endpoint of this hospital-based study was ongoing pregnancy within 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Dutch Trial Register and as an International Standard Randomised Clinical Trial, number ISRCTN72675518.
                Of the 253 couples enrolled, 127 were assigned intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and 126 expectant management. In the intervention group, 42 (33%) women conceived and 29 (23%) pregnancies were ongoing. In the expectant management group, 40 (32%) women conceived and 34 (27%) pregnancies were ongoing (relative risk 0.85, 95% CI 0.63-1.1). There was one twin pregnancy in each study group, and one woman in the intervention group conceived triplets.
                A large beneficial effect of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis can be excluded. Expectant management for 6 months is therefore justified in these couples. In this randomized crossover trial we investigated whether the use of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with low-dose human menopausal gonadotrophin in couples with male subfertility leads to a higher probability of conception when intrauterine insemination (IUI) is applied. We also investigated whether the efficacy of IUI in natural or stimulated cycles was related to the severity of male subfertility. Seventy-four couples completed 308 treatment cycles. Thirteen pregnancies occurred after IUI in a natural cycle (pregnancy rate per completed cycle: 8.4%) and 21 after IUI in a stimulated cycle (pregnancy rate per completed cycle: 13.7%). The difference between the two treatment modalities was not statistically significant. The efficacy of IUI in stimulated cycles was related to the severity of the semen defect. In couples with a total motile sperm count < 10 x 10(6), ovarian stimulation did not improve treatment outcome, while it did in couples with a total motile sperm count > or = 10 x 10(6). Compared with the expected chance of conceiving spontaneously without treatment, both natural and stimulated cycles improved the probability of conception. We conclude that, for the group as a whole, ovarian stimulation did not improve the probability of conception. However, in couples with less severe semen defects, ovarian stimulation did improve the probability of conception.
Based on the results of pregnancy rate per couple in five trials, double intrauterine insemination resulted in significant benefit over single intrauterine insemination in the treatment of subfertile couples with husband semen. If advice is to be offered regarding clinical practice, further research is warranted.