Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Aug 30;(8):CD010550. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010550.pub2.

Natural cycle in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for subfertile couples.

Author information

1
University Medical Centre Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, Netherlands, 9700 RB.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Subfertility affects 15% to 20% of couples trying to conceive. In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is one of the assisted reproduction techniques developed to improve chances of achieving pregnancy. In the standard IVF method with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), growth and development of multiple follicles are stimulated by using gonadotrophins, often combined with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist. Although it is an established method of conception for subfertile couples, the treatment is expensive and has a high risk of adverse effects. Studies have shown that IVF in a natural cycle (NC) or a modified natural cycle (MNC) might be a promising low risk and low cost alternative to the standard stimulated IVF treatment since the available dominant follicle of each cycle is used. In this review, we included available randomised controlled studies comparing natural cycle IVF (NC and MNC) with standard IVF.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare the efficacy and safety of natural cycle IVF (including both NC-IVF and MNC-IVF) with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation IVF (COH-IVF) in subfertile couples.

SEARCH METHODS:

An extended search including of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, conference abstracts in the Web of Knowledge, the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform search portal, LILACS database, PubMed and the OpenSIGLE database was conducted according to Cochrane guidelines. The last search was on 31st July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either natural cycle IVF or modified natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF in subfertile couples were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Data selection and extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out independently by two authors (TA and AC). The primary outcome measures were live birth rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate per randomised woman. We calculated Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios for each dichotomous outcome and either the mean difference or the standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A fixed effect model was used unless there was substantial heterogeneity, in which case a random effects model was used.

MAIN RESULTS:

Six randomised controlled trials with a total of 788 women were included. The largest of these trials included 396 women eligible for this review.No evidence of a statistically significant difference was found between natural cycle and standard IVF in live birth rates (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01, two studies, 425 women, I(2)= 0%, moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for a woman with a 53% chance of live birth using standard IVF, the chance using natural cycle IVF would range from 34% to 53%. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference between natural cycle and standard IVF in rates of OHSS (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06, one study, 60 women, very low quality evidence), clinical pregnancy (OR 0.52 95% CI 0.17 to 1.61, 4 studies, 351 women, I(2)=63%, low quality evidence), ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.05, three studies, 485 women, I(2)=0%, moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.31, 2 studies, 527 women, I(2)=0%, very low quality evidence), gestational abnormalities (OR 0.44 95% CI 0.03 to 5.93, 1 study, 18 women, very low quality evidence) or cycle cancellations (OR 8.98, 95% CI 0.20 to 393.66, 2 studies, 159 women, I(2)=83%, very low quality evidence). One trial reported that the oocyte retrieval rate was significantly lower in the natural cycle group (MD -4.40, 95% CI -7.87 to -0.93, 60 women, very low quality evidence). There were insufficient data to draw any conclusions about rates of treatment cancellation. Findings on treatment costs were inconsistent and more data are awaited. The evidence was limited by imprecision. Findings for pregnancy rate and for cycle cancellation were sensitive to the choice of statistical model: for these outcomes, use of a fixed effect model suggested a benefit for the standard IVF group. Moreover the largest trial has not yet completed follow up, though data have been reported for over 95% of women.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Further evidence from well conducted large trials is awaited on natural cycle IVF treatment. Future trials should compare natural cycle IVF with standard IVF. Outcomes should include cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates, the number of treatment cycles necessary to reach live birth, treatment costs and adverse effects.

PMID:
23990351
DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD010550.pub2
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center