Dataset Information

The effect of ICSI in infertility couples with non-male factor: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature to investigate the efficacy of the intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in couples with non-male factor with respect to the clinical outcomes.

Methods

The literature search was based on EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. All studies published after 1992 until February 2020 and written in English addressing patients in the presence of normal semen parameters subjected to ICSI and in vitro fertilization (IVF) were eligible. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched for additional studies. The primary outcomes were fertilization rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and implantation rate; the secondary outcomes were good-quality embryo rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate.

Results

Four RCTs and twenty-two cohort studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. Collectively, a meta-analysis of the outcomes in RCTs showed that compared to IVF, ICSI has no obvious advantage in fertilization rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.83-1.62), clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.66-1.64), implantation rate (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.67-1.86), and live birth rate (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.43-3.15). Pooled results of cohort studies demonstrated a statistically significant higher fertilization rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.03-1.31) and miscarriage rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.06) in the ICSI group; furthermore, higher clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.94), implantation rate (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95), and live birth rate (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.94) was founded in the IVF group; no statistically significant difference was observed in good-quality embryo rate (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93-1.04).

Conclusion

ICSI has no obvious advantage in patients with normal semen parameters. Enough information is still not available to prove the efficacy of ICSI in couples with non-male factor infertility comparing to IVF.

SUBMITTER: Geng T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7714870 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questions:Does ICSI result in a higher live birth rate as compared with conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility? What is known already:ICSI is primarily indicated for severe male factor infertility. While the use of ICSI for couples with non-male factor infertility has been increasing worldwide, this is not supported by data from randomised controlled trials. Evidence from non-randomised studies suggest no benefit from ICSI compared with conventional IVF in non-male factor infertility, if not a harm. Study design size duration:This randomised, open-label, multi-centre trial aims to compare the effectiveness of one ICSI cycle and one conventional IVF cycle in infertile couples with non-male factor infertility. A total of 1064 couples will be randomly allocated to an ICSI group and a conventional IVF group. The estimated duration of the study is 30 months. Participants/materials setting methods:Eligible couples are those whose husbands' total sperm count and motility are normal, have undergone ?2 previous IVF/ICSI attempts, use antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation, agree to have ?2 embryos transferred and are not participating in another IVF study at the same time. Women undergoing IVM cycles, using frozen semen or having a poor fertilisation (?25%) in previous cycle will not be eligible. Couples will be randomised to undergo ICSI or conventional IVF (1:1) with ongoing pregnancy resulting in live birth after the first embryo transfer of the started treatment cycle as the primary endpoint. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Effect sizes will be summarised as relative risk (RR), with precision evaluated by 95% CIs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS:All authors declare having no conflict of interests with regards to this trial. This work was supported by a grant from MSD [MISP #57508]. Trial registration number:NCT03428919. Trial registration date:8 February 2018. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT:16 March 2018.

Project description:IntroductionThe use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has dramatically increased in patients with non-male factor infertility during the last decades. However, whether ICSI provides a significant benefit over in vitro fertilization (IVF) in these patients is still controversial. In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of ICSI on reproductive outcomes with non-male factor infertility and to provide updated evidence for clinical practice.Material and methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to March 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy between ICSI and IVF in patients with non-male factor infertility were included. The main outcomes were the live birth rate (LBR), fertilization rate (FR), and total fertilization failure (TFF). The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects models as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023427004).ResultsWe included 18 RCTs with 3249 cycles and 30 994 oocytes. The results demonstrated that ICSI reduced the risk of TFF (RR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.13-0.50, I2 = 58%) and increased FR per oocyte inseminated/injected (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08-1.20, I2 = 69%), but it did not improve LBR (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.94-1.30, I2 = 0%) or other outcomes compared with IVF. However, the difference in fertilization failure reduction between ICSI and IVF may be explained by different randomization methods (randomization based on patients vs. sibling oocytes). When considering only studies with randomization based on patients, we found no evidence of the difference between the groups (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.48-1.06, I2 = 0%). Furthermore, no differences were observed in subgroup analyses based on other factors, including female age, study period, and controlled ovarian stimulation protocols.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that ICSI leads to no difference in reproductive outcomes compared to IVF in patients with non-male factor infertility. Considering the cost and safety of ICSI, we have no evidence to support the routine use of ICSI in these populations. High-quality RCTs with large sample sizes will be needed to confirm our results and explore clinical and neonatal outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to determine whether intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is beneficial in patients with non-male factor infertility.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis included articles from inception to May 2022. Published studies of non-male factor infertile women undergoing ICSI or in vitro fertilization (IVF) included in PubMed, Embase, web of science, Wanfang Database, and CNKI were searched by computer, without language restrictions. A random-effect model was applied to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Letters, case reports, and review articles including meta-analyses and expert opinions were excluded. The primary endpoints were laboratory outcomes and pregnancy outcomes. The Secondary endpoints were neonatal outcomes.ResultsSix randomized controlled studies and 20 retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. In meta-analytic forest plots, compared with IVF, those who received ICSI treatment were not different in fertilization rate (RR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.90-1.09], P = 0.88), total fertilization failure rate (RR = 1.30, 95% CI [1.17-1.45], P < 0.00001), and good quality embryo rate (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [ 0.86-1.02], P = 0.15), clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.70-1.01], P = 0.06), live birth rate (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.77-1.03], P = 0.13), miscarriage rate (RR = 1.06, 95% CI [0.78-1.43], P = 0.71), preterm neonatal delivery rate (RR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.67-1.26], P = 0.61), and low neonatal weight rate (RR = 1.13, 95% CI [0.80-1.61], P = 0.48). However, the implantation rate of IVF was better than ICSI (RR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.64-0.93], P = 0.005). In the subgroup analysis of the live birth rate of fresh embryo transfer, IVF performed in those ≥35 years had a higher live birth rate (RR = 0.82, 95% CI [0.78-0.83], P < 0.001).ConclusionThe findings of this study indicate that ICSI is not superior to IVF in the treatment of infertility related to non-male factors. In order to confirm this result, more high-quality clinical studies are needed.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), originally introduced as add-on to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for couples with severe male infertility, is in current clinical practice also used in couples with mild male or even unexplained infertility. However, ICSI has involved unresolved concerns regarding the selection and damage to gametes and the health conditions of the offspring, and it is also labour intensive and therefore more expensive than conventional IVF. High-quality well-powered randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing ICSI and IVF are lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We propose a multicentre, open-label RCT in 10 reproductive medical centres across China. We will study couples with non-severe male infertility (defined as a semen concentrate 5-15×106/mL or sperm with a progressive motility 10%-32%) scheduled for their first or second ICSI or IVF cycle, as low fertility rate after fertilisation are more frequent in this population, which could lead to controversy about ICSI or conventional IVF for fertilisation. On the day of oocyte retrieval, eligible participants are after informed consent be randomised to undergo either ICSI or conventional IVF in a 1:1 treatment ratio. Other standard assisted reproductive treatments are similar and parallel between two groups. Our primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth after the first cycle with embryo transfer. To demonstrate or refute a difference of 7% between ICSI and conventional IVF, we need to include 2346 women (1173 in each intervention arm). In addition, we will follow-up neonatal outcomes after delivery to identify the influence of ICSI on offspring. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval was obtained from Peking University Third Hospital medical science research ethics committee. The findings will be disseminated to the public through conference presentations and peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT03298633).

Project description:ContextMounting evidence from the literature suggests that different types of training interventions can be successful at improving several aspects of male reproductive function in both fertile and infertile populations.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of exercise training on male factor infertility and seminal markers of inflammation.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, CISCOM, Springer, Elsevier Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, PEDro, Ovid (Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO), Sport Discus, Orbis, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that analyzed the impacts of selected types of exercise interventions on markers of male reproductive function and reproductive performance.Study selectionA total of 336 records were identified, of which we included 7 trials reporting on 2641 fertile and infertile men in the systematic review and network meta-analysis.Level of evidenceLevel 1 (because this is a systematic review of RCTs).Data extractionThe data included the study design, participant characteristics, inclusion and exclusion, intervention characteristics, outcome measures, and the main results of the study.ResultsThe results of network meta-analysis showed that, compared with a nonintervention control group, the top-ranking interventions for pregnancy rate were for combined aerobic and resistance training (CET) (relative risk [RR] = 27.81), moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) (RR = 26.67), resistance training (RT) (RR = 12.54), high-intensity continuous training (HICT) (RR = 5.55), and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) (RR = 4.63). While the top-ranking interventions for live birth rate were for MICT (RR = 10.05), RT (RR = 4.92), HIIT (RR = 4.38), CET (RR = 2.20), and HICT (RR = 1.55). Also, with the following order of effectiveness, 5 training strategies were significantly better at improving semen quality parameters (CET > MICT > HICT > RT > HIIT), seminal markers of oxidative stress (CET > MICT > HIIT > HICT > RT), seminal markers of inflammation (CET > MICT > HIIT > RT > HICT), as well as measures of body composition and VO2max (CET > HICT > MICT > HIIT > RT).ConclusionThe review recommends that the intervention with the highest probability of being the best approach out of all available options for improving the male factor infertility was for CET.