Effectiveness of infertility treatments: Choice and comparative analysis

Abstract

Choice of infertility treatments usually depends on a balance of the chances of conceiving with or without treatment, and with more or less complex and costly treatments, and on other factors such as duration of infertility and the woman's age. Pregnancies often occur independent of treatment and prospective controlled trials are needed. Comparability between reported results requires pregnancy and birth rates to be calculated in a time-specific or cycle-specific way. Cumulative rates are preferable to account for the usual tendency of fecundity to fall progressively. This review focuses on such published data in order to assess the relative effectiveness of treatments, both conventional and assisted conception methods. The main conclusions are: (1) The only treatments that can achieve a normal chance of pregnancy are the ovulation induction methods in cases of oligomenorrhea/amenorrhea, and the assisted conception methods for other female causes and unexplained infertility. (2) Tubal/pelvic infective damage and endometriosis require new severity classifications which are sensitive to functional potential before and after surgery, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) would often be indicated as the primary choice. (3) Duration of unexplained infertility determines the need and therefore benefit of any of the treatments used, of which the assisted conception methods are by far the most effective. (4) Interpretation of reported results of treatments for ‘male factor’ infertility is critically affected by the diagnostic accuracy of defining sperm dysfunction. (5) In cases of well-defined sperm dysfunction there is little or no therapeutic benefit to the chance of natural conception, nor by intrauterine insemination; there is moderate success by IVF, but no proven benefit over standard IVF by any micromanipulative method except probably intracytoplasmic sperm injection.