Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2002;2002(3):CD003052.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003052.

Oral versus injectable ovulation induction agents for unexplained subfertility

N Athaullah  1 , M Proctor, N P Johnson
Affiliations

Oral versus injectable ovulation induction agents for unexplained subfertility

N Athaullah et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002.

Abstract

Background: Oral (anti-oestrogens) and injectable (gonadotrophins) ovulation induction agents have been used to increase the number of eggs produced by a woman per cycle in treatment for unexplained subfertility. It is unclear whether there are significant advantages of one type of treatment over the other in this context or in terms of fertility.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy of oral versus injectable ovulation induction agents for unexplained subfertility.

Search strategy: The search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group was used for the identification of relevant randomised controlled trials.

Selection criteria: All trials where oral ovulation induction agents were compared with injectable ovulation induction agents in treatment groups generated by randomisation, from couples with unexplained subfertility, were considered for inclusion in the review.

Data collection and analysis: Five randomised controlled trials, including a total of 231 identified couples with unexplained subfertility, were found and included in this review. All trials were assessed for quality criteria. The studied outcomes were pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage, multiple birth, occurrence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and cycle cancellation.

Main results: Where trials with important co-interventions were excluded, there was no significant difference in the odds of beneficial outcomes for oral versus injectable ovulation induction agents - live birth per couple (OR 0.06, 95%CI 0.00-1.15), pregnancy per woman (OR 0.33, 95%CI 0.09-1.20); nor of detrimental outcomes for injectable versus oral agents - miscarriage (OR 0.11, 95%CI 0.00-2.84); there were no reported cases of multiple births, cases of ovarian hyperstimulation or discontinued cycles consequent upon overstimulation. Where trials with the co-intervention of a human chorionic gonadotrophin trigger injection (given only in the injectable ovulation induction agent treatment arm) were not excluded there was no significant difference in the odds of live birth per couple (OR 0.40, 95%CI 0.15-1.08). However oral ovulation induction agents had significantly reduced odds of pregnancy per woman compared to injectable ovulation induction agents (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.17-0.80). For detrimental outcomes, there were no significant differences in the odds of miscarriage (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.09-4.01) and multiple birth (OR 1.08, 95%CI 0.16-7.03) for injectable versus oral agents. No data were available concerning the occurrence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome nor cycle cancellation.

Reviewer's conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to suggest that oral agents are inferior or superior to injectable agents in the treatment of unexplained subfertility. Information on harms is sketchy, and remains compatible with large differences in either direction. Much larger trials than have previously been undertaken are required to provide information on relative harms as well as benefits.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

NJ works as a gynaecologist at Auckland City Hospital (a public hospital) in the National Women's Minimal Access Surgery and Endometriosis Service. NJ is also a private gynaecologist with groups called Endometriosis Auckland and IVF Auckland. Within the last 3 years NJ has received financial support to attend conferences or to arrange research meetings from the following companies: Organon, Serono, Schering and Device Technologies. NJ is an author of the Auckland LUNA Trial and of the Cochrane/systematic review on neuroablation and LUNA.

Figures

1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Anti‐oestrogens vs gonadotrophins (including trials with hCG trigger co‐intervention), Outcome 1 Live birth per couple.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Anti‐oestrogens vs gonadotrophins (including trials with hCG trigger co‐intervention), Outcome 2 Pregnancy rate per woman.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Anti‐oestrogens vs gonadotrophins (including trials with hCG trigger co‐intervention), Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate per cycle.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Anti‐oestrogens vs gonadotrophins (including trials with hCG trigger co‐intervention), Outcome 4 Miscarriage rate per pregnancy.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Anti‐oestrogens vs gonadotrophins (including trials with hCG trigger co‐intervention), Outcome 5 Multiple birth rate per pregnancy.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Anti‐oestrogens vs gonadotrophins (including trials with hCG trigger co‐intervention), Outcome 6 Occurrence of overstimulation leading to discontinuation of the study per cycle.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Anti‐oestrogens vs gonadotrophins (excluding trials with hCG trigger co‐intervention), Outcome 1 Pregnancy rate per woman.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Anti‐oestrogens vs gonadotrophins (excluding trials with hCG trigger co‐intervention), Outcome 2 Pregnancy rate per cycle.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

References to studies included in this review

Balasch 1994 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Balasch J, Ballesca JL, Pimentel C, Creus M, Fabregues F, Vanrell JA. Late low dose pure FSH for ovarian stimulation in IUI insemination cycles. Human Reproduction 1994;9(10):1863‐1866. - PubMed
Ecochard 2000 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Echochard R, Mathieu C, Royere D, Blache G, Rabilloud M, Cyzba J. A randomized prospective study comparing pregnancy rates after CC and hMG before IUI. Fertility & Sterility 2000;73(1):90‐93. - PubMed
Karlstrom 1993 {published data only}
    1. Karlstrom PO, Bergh T, Lundkvist O. A prospective randomized trial of artificial insemination versus intercourse in cycles stimulated with human menopausal gonadotropin or clomiphene citrate. Fertility & Sterility 1993;59(3):554‐559. - PubMed
Karlstrom 1998 {published data only}
    1. Karlstrom PO, Berkurezion M, Bergh T, Lundkvist O. An extended prospective randomized trial of artificial insemination versus intercourse in cycles stimulated with hMG or CC. Fertility & Sterility 1998;70(3):S420. - PubMed
Nakajima 1999 {published data only}
    1. Nakajima AK, Smith LL, Wong B, Scott JZ, Cumming DC, Tartaryn IV, et al. A randomized trial of CC plus IUI versus rFSH plus IUI for the treatment of subfertility. Fertility & Sterility Supplement 1999;72(3):208.

References to studies excluded from this review

Abdalla 1990 {published data only}
    1. Abdalla HI, Ahuja KK, Leonard T, Morris NM, Hunter JW, Jacobs HS. Comparitive trial of LHRH/hMG and CC/hMG in an assisted conception program. Fertility & Sterility 1990;53(3):473‐8. - PubMed
Ahmed‐Ebbiary 1995 {published data only}
    1. Ahmed‐Ebbiary NA, Morgan C, Martin K, Afnan M, Newton JR. Ovarian response in consecutive cycles of ovarian stimulation in normally ovulating women. Human Reproduction 1995;10(3):536‐43. - PubMed
Arcaini 1996 {published data only}
    1. Arcaini L, Bianchi S, Baglioni A, Marchini M, Tozzi L, Fedele L. Superovulation and IUI vs. superovulation alone in the treatment of uunexplained infertility. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1996;41(8):614‐8. - PubMed
Arici 1994 {published data only}
    1. Arici A, Byrd W, Bradshaw K, Kutteh WH, Marshburn P, Carr BR. Evaluation of CC and hCG treatment: a prospective randomized crossover study during IUI cycles. Fertility & Sterility 1994;61(2):314‐8. - PubMed
Check 1992 {published data only}
    1. Check JH, Davies E, Adelson H. A randomized prospective study comparing pregnancy rates following CC and hMG therapy. Human Reproduction 1992;7(6):801‐5. - PubMed
Dhont 1995 {published data only}
    1. Dhont M, Onghena A, Coetsier T, Sutter P. Prospective randomized study of CC and gonadotrophins versus goserelin and gonadotrophins for follicular stimulation in assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction 1995;10(4):791‐6. - PubMed
Dickey (2) 1993 {published data only}
    1. Dickey RP, Olar TT, Taylor SN, Curole DN, Matulich EM. Relationship of endometrial thickness and pattern fecundity in ovulation induction cycles: effect of CC alone and with hMG. Fertility & Sterility 1993;59(4):756‐60. - PubMed
Dickey 1992 {published data only}
    1. Dickey R, Olar T, Taylor S, Curole D, Rye P. Sequential use of clomiphene citrate and human menopausal gonadotrophin for ovulation induction: Comparison with clomiphene citrate alone and human menopausal gonadotrophin. Fertility & Sterility Abstracts 1992;58:S310. - PubMed
El‐Sadek 1998 {published data only}
    1. Sadek MM, Amer MK, Abdel‐Malak G. Questioning the efficacy of FSP perfusion. Human Reproduction 1998;13(11):3053‐6. - PubMed
Fanchin 1995 {published data only}
    1. Fanchin R, Olivennes F, Righini C, Hazout A, Schwab B, Frydman R. A new system for FSP perfusion leads to pregnancy rates twice as high as standard intrauterine insemination.. Fertility & Sterility 1995;64(3):505‐10. - PubMed
Fisch 1989 {published data only}
    1. Fisch P, Casper RF, Brown SE, Wrixon W, Collins JA, Reid RL, et al. Unexplained infertility: evaluation of treatment with CC and hCG.. Fertility & Sterility 1989;51(5):828‐32. - PubMed
Frederick 1994 {published data only}
    1. Frederick JL, Denker MS, Rojas A, Horta I, Stone SC, Asch RH, et al. Is there a role for ovarian stimulation and IUI after age 40?. Human Reproduction 1994;9(12):2284‐6. - PubMed
Gerli 2000 {published data only}
    1. Gerli S, Gholami H, Manna A, Frega AS, Vitiello C, Unfer V. Use of ethinyl estradiol to reverse the antiestrogenic effects of CC in patients undergoing IUI insemination: a comparative randomized study.. Fertility & Sterility 2000;73(1):85‐9. - PubMed
Grochowski 1998 {published data only}
    1. Grochowski D, Wolczynski S, Kuczynski W, Domitrz J, Szamatowicz J, Syrewicz M, et al. Prospective comparison of CC/hMG versus D‐triptorelin and hMG in an IVF/ICSI program.. Fertility & Sterility 1998;70(3):S443.
Harrison 1983 {published data only}
    1. Harrison RF, O'Moore RR. The use of CC with and without HCG. Irish Medical Journal 1983;76(6):273‐4. - PubMed
Karande 1995 {published data only}
    1. Karande VC, Rao R, Pratt DE, Balin M, Levrant S, Morris R, et al. A randomized prospective comparison between IUI and FSP for the treatment of infertility. Fertility & Sterility 1995;64(3):630‐40. - PubMed
Kingsland 1992 {published data only}
    1. Kingsland C, Tan S‐L, Bickerton N, Mason B, Campbell S. The routine use of GnRH hormone aonists for all patients undergoing IVF. Is there any advantage? A prospective randomized study.. Fertility & Sterility 1992;57(4):804‐9. - PubMed
Lidor 2000 {published data only}
    1. Lidor AL, Cohen SB, Seidman DS, Mashiach S, Lipitz S, Goldenberg M. Preferred treatment of infertile women older than 37 years of age who demonstrate premature luteinization in the first evaluation cycle. Fertility & Sterility 2000;73(2):321‐4. - PubMed
Manganiello 1997 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Manganiello PD, Stern JE, Stukel TA, Crow H, Brinck‐Johnsen T, Weiss JE. A comparison of CC and hMG for use in conjuction with IUI. Fertility & Sterility 1997;68(3):405‐12. - PubMed
Martinez 1991 {published data only}
    1. Martinez AR, Bernadus RE, Voorhorst FJ, Vermeiden JPW, Schoemaker J. A controlled study of hCG induced ovulation versus urinary luteinizing hormone for timing of IUI. Human Reproduction 1991;6(9):1247‐51. - PubMed
Nuojua‐Huttunen 1997 {published data only}
    1. Nuojua‐Huttunen S, Tomas C, Tuomivaara L, Martikainen H, Juntunen K. Comparison of FSP with IUI in the treatment of infertility. Fertility & Sterility 1997;67(5):939‐42. - PubMed
Plosker 1994 {published data only}
    1. Plosker SM, Jacobson W, Amato P. Predicting and optimizing success in an IUI programme.. Human Reproduction 1994;9(11):2014‐21. - PubMed
Polson 1991 {published data only}
    1. Polson DW, Wood C, MacLachlan V, Healy DL, Krapez JA. A controlled study of GnRH agonist (buserelin acetate) for folliculogenesis in routine IVF patients. Fertility & Sterility 1991;56(3):509‐14. - PubMed
Quigley 1984 {published data only}
    1. Quigley MM, Schmidt CL, Beauchamp PJ, Pace‐Owens S, Berkowitz AS, Wolf DP. Enhanced follicular recruitment in an IVF program: CC alone versus a CC/hMG combination. Fertility & Sterility 1984;42(1):25‐31. - PubMed
Ransom 1996 {published data only}
    1. Ransom MX, Doughman NC, Garcia AJ. Menotropins alone are superior to clomiphene citrate and menotropin combination for superovulation induction among clomiphene citrate failures. Fertility & Sterility 1996;65(6):1169‐74. - PubMed
Rogers 1986 {published data only}
    1. Rogers P, Molloy D, Healy D, McBain J, Howlett D, Bourne H, et al. Cross‐over trial of superovulation protocols from two major IVF centres. Fertility & Sterility 1986;46(3):424‐31. - PubMed
Van der Auwera 1994 {published data only}
    1. Auwera I, Meuleman C, Koninckx PR. hMG increases pregnancy rate in comparison with CC during replacement cycles of frozen/thawed pronucleate ova. Human Reproduction 1994;9(8):1556‐60. - PubMed

Additional references

Balasch 1999
    1. Balsch J, Gonzalez‐Merlo J. Ovarian follicle stimulation and risk of gynaecological cancer (with specific reference to ovarian cancer). Progresos de Obstetrica g Ginecologia 1999;42(9):611‐42.
Blacker 1992
    1. Blacker CM. Ovulation stimulation and induction. Reproductive Endocrinology 1992;21(1):57‐84. - PubMed
Gallot‐Lavallee 1995
    1. Gallot‐Lavallee P, Ecochard R, Mathieu C, Pinzaru G, Cyzba JC. Clomiphene citrate or hMG: what ovarian stimulation to choose for intrauterine insemination? Contribution of a meta‐analysis. [Citrate de clomifene ou hMG: quelle stimulation ovarienne choisir avant inseminations intra‐uterines? Les apports d'une meta‐analyse]. Contraception, Fertilite, Sexulaite 1995;23(2):115‐21. - PubMed
Guzick 1998
    1. Guzick DS, Sullivan MW, Adamson GD, Cedars MI, Falk RJ, Peterson EP, et al. Efficacy of treatment for unexplained infertility. Fertility and Sterility 1998;70(2):207‐13. - PubMed
Hughes (A) 2000
    1. Hughes E, Collins J, Vandekerchove P. Clomiphene citrate for ovulation induction in women with oligo‐amenorrhoea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 4. - PubMed
Hughes (B) 2000
    1. Hughes E, Collins J, Vandekerckhove P. GnRH hormone analogue as an adjuct to gonadotrophin therapy for clomiphen‐resistant polycystic ovarian syndrome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 4. - PubMed
Hughes (C) 2000
    1. Hughes E, Collins J, Vandekerchove P. Clomiphene citrate for unexplained subfertility in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 4. - PubMed
Hughes 1997 (meta)
    1. Hughes EG. The efficacy of ovulation induction and interuterine insemination in the treatment of persistent infertility: a meta‐analysis. Human Reproduction 1997;12(9):1865‐72. - PubMed
Murray 1989
    1. Murray DL, Reich L, Adashi EY. Oral clomiphene citrate and vaginal progesterone suppositories in the treatment of luteal phase dysfunction: a comparative study. Fertility & Sterility 1989;51(1):35‐41. - PubMed
WHO Sperm 1999
    1. World Health Organisation. WHO Laboratory Manual: for the examination of human semen and sperm‐cervical mucus interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Publication types

MeSH terms