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
Meta-Analysis
. 2013 Aug 30;2013(8):CD010550.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010550.pub2.

Natural cycle in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for subfertile couples

Thomas Allersma  1 , Cindy Farquhar, Astrid E P Cantineau
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Natural cycle in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for subfertile couples

Thomas Allersma et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No declaration of interests.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, outcome: 1.1 Live births.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, outcome: 1.2 OHSS.
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, outcome: 1.3 Clinical pregnancy.
7
7
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, outcome: 1.4 Ongoing pregnancy.
8
8
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, outcome: 1.11 Cycle cancellations.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, Outcome 1 Live births.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, Outcome 2 OHSS.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, Outcome 4 Ongoing pregnancy.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, Outcome 5 Oocytes retrieved.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, Outcome 8 Multiple pregnancies.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, Outcome 9 Gestational abnormalities.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, Outcome 11 Cycle cancellations.
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, Outcome 12 Costs.
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF, Outcome 13 Subgroup analysis: Clinical pregnancy rate by intervention.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Bensdorp 2013 {published data only}
    1. Bensdorp AJ, Slappendel E, Koks C, Oosterhuis J, Hoek A, Hompes P, et al. The INeS study: prevention of multiple pregnancies: a randomised controlled trial comparing IUI COH versus IVF e SET versus MNC IVF in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. BMC Women's Health 2009;9:35. [DOI: 10.1186/1472-6874-9-35] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tjon‐Kon‐Fat RI, Bensdorp AJ, Maas J, Oosterhuis GJE, et al. An economic analysis comparing IVF with a single embryo transfer and IVF with amodified natural cycle to IUI with hyperstimulation (the INeS trial). European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 29th Annual Meeting, Human Reproduction 2013;28 S1:Abstract 0‐171.
Ingerslev 2001 {published data only}
    1. Ingerslev HJ, Hojgaard A, Hindkjaer J, Kesmodel U. A randomized study comparing IVF in the unstimulated cycle with IVF following clomiphene citrate. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) 2001 Apr;16(4):696‐702. - PubMed
    1. Ingerslev HJ, Hojgaard A, et al. An open randomized study of IVF in natural cycles or with clomiphene citrate in younger patients with selected diagnoses. Human Reproduction 1998;13:50‐1.
    1. Ingerslev HJ, Hojgaard A, et al. Natural cycle and chlomiphene citrate ivf revisited an open randomized study of ivf in natural cycles or with clomiphene citrate in younger patients with selected diagnosis. 11th World Congress on In Vitro Fertilization and Human Reproductive Genetics. 1999:255p.
Levy 1991 {published data only}
    1. Levy MJ, Gindoff P, Hall J, Stillman RJ. The efficacy of natural versus stimulated cycle IVF‐ET. Fertility and Sterility 1991;56:pp.S15‐16.
Lou 2010 {published data only}
    1. Lou HY, Huang XY. Modified natural cycle for in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in normal ovarian responders. The Journal of International Medical Research 2010;38(6):2070‐6. - PubMed
MacDougal 1994 {published data only}
    1. MacDougall MJ, Tan SL, Hall V, Balen A, Mason BA, Jacobs HS. Comparison of natural with clomiphene citrate‐stimulated cycles in in vitro fertilization: a prospective, randomized trial. Fertility and Sterility 1994;61(6):1052‐7. - PubMed
    1. MacDougall MJ, Tan SL, et al. Natural cycle in‐vitro fertilization Prospective‐ randomized trial comparing unstimulated with stimulated in‐vitro fertilization (abstract). Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 1992;96:20.
Morgia 2004 {published data only}
    1. Aragona C, Sbracia M, et al. VF in poor responder patients: A controlled trial between natural cycle and micro‐dose GnRH analogue flare. Fertility and Sterility 2003;80 Suppl 3:S191, Abstract no: P‐206.
    1. Morgia F, Sbracia M, Schimberni M, Giallonardo A, Piscitelli C, Giannini P, Aragona C. A controlled trial of natural cycle versus microdose gonadotropin‐releasing hormone analog flare cycles in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 2004;81(6):1542‐7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.11.031] - DOI - PubMed
    1. Morgia F, Sbracia M, Schimberni M, Giallonardo A, Piscitelli C, Giannini P, Aragona C. IVF in poor responder patients: a controlled trial between natural cycle and micro‐dose GnRH‐a flare. The 20th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 2004:i117p.

References to studies excluded from this review

Adams 2004 {published data only}
    1. Adams SM, Terry V, Hosie MJ, Gayer N, Murphy CR. Endometrial response to IVF hormonal manipulation: comparative analysis of menopausal, down regulated and natural cycles. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology : RB&E 2004 Apr 30;2:21. [DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-2-21] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Bassil 1999 {published data only}
    1. Bassil S, Godin PA, Donnez J. Outcome of in‐vitro fertilization through natural cycles in poor responders. Human Reproduction 1999;14(5):1262‐5. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/14.5.1262] - DOI - PubMed
Belaid 2005 {published data only}
    1. Belaid Y, Fanchin R, Du A, Hesters L, Frydman R, Frydman N. Assisted hatching and natural cycle: A prospective and randomized study. Fertility and Sterility 2005;84 Suppl 1:S420.
Groenewoud 2012 {published data only}
    1. Groenewoud ER, Macklon NS, Cohlen BJ. Cryo‐thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non‐inferiority trial (ANTARCTICA trial). BMC Women's Health 2012;12:27. [DOI: 10.1186/1472-6874-12-27] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Hojgaard 2001 {published data only}
    1. Hojgaard A, Ingerslev HJ, Dinesen J. Friendly IVF: patient opinions. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) 2001;16(7):1391‐6. - PubMed
Jancar 2009 {published data only}
    1. Jancar N, Virant‐Klun I, Bokal EV. Serum and follicular endocrine profile is different in modified natural cycles than in cycles stimulated with gonadotropin and gonadotropin‐releasing hormone antagonist. Fertility and Sterility 2009;92(6):2069‐71. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.06.054] - DOI - PubMed
Karimzadeh 2012 {published data only}
    1. Karimzadeh MA, Mohammadian F, Mashayekhy M. Comparison of frozen‐thawed embryo transfer outcome in natural cycle and hormone replacement cycle. Human Reproduction 2012;27 Suppl 2:ii226‐7 Abstract number: P‐284. [DOI: 10.1007/s00404-010-1828-z] - DOI
Kim 2009 {published data only}
    1. Kim CH, Kim SR, Cheon YP, Kim SH, Chae HD, Kang BM. Minimal stimulation using gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and recombinant human follicle‐stimulating hormone versus GnRH antagonist multiple‐dose protocol in low responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertility and Sterility 2009;92(6):2082‐4. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.06.005] - DOI - PubMed
Lee 2008 {published data only}
    1. Lee SJ, Kwon HC, Kim JW, Lee JH, Jung KJ, Jung JY, Ko HS. Comparison of clinical outcome of frozen‐thawed embryo transfer cycles between natural and artificial (hormone‐treated) cycles. Human Reproduction. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. ESHRE 24th Annual Meeting, Barcelona 2008;23:313.
Mirkin 2004 {published data only}
    1. Mirkin S, Nikas G, Hsiu JG, Diaz J, Oehninger S. Gene expression profiles and structural/functional features of the peri‐implantation endometrium in natural and gonadotropin‐stimulated cycles. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2004;89(11):5742‐52. [DOI: 10.1210/jc.2004-0605] - DOI - PubMed
Paulson 1990 {published data only}
    1. Paulson RJ, Sauer MV, Francis MM, Macaso TM, Lobo RA. In vitro fertilization in unstimulated cycles: a clinical trial using hCG for timing of follicle aspiration. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1990;76(5 Pt 1):788‐91. - PubMed
Pistorius 2006 {published data only}
    1. Pistorius EN, Adang EM, Stalmeier PF, Braat DD, Kremer JA. Prospective patient and physician preferences for stimulation or no stimulation in IVF. Human Fertility 2006;9(4):209‐16. [DOI: 10.1080/14647270600560287] - DOI - PubMed
Rama Devi 2011 {published data only}
    1. Rama Devi P, Chatterjee C, Rajyalakshmi A, Navatha P, Arshiya F. A friendly IVF protocol. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 2011;61(1):77‐80.
Reyftmann 2007 {published data only}
    1. Reyftmann L, Dechaud H, Loup V, Anahory T, Brunet‐Joyeux C, Lacroix N, et al. Natural cycle in vitro fertilization cycle in poor responders. Gynecologie, Obstetrique & Fertilite 2007;35(4):352‐8. [DOI: 10.1016/S1297-9589(07)00072-0] - DOI - PubMed
Schimberni 2011 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Schimberni M, Ubaldi F, Giallonardo A, Rienzi L, Morgia F, Sbracia M. A controlled trial between natural cycle versus minimal stimulation in poor responder women: minimal stimulation works better in patients less than 40 years old. Fertility and Sterility 2011;96(3 Suppl):S262 P‐525.
Strohmer 1997 {published data only}
    1. Strohmer H, Chatwani S, Wieser F, Danninger B, Obruca A, Feichtinger W. Prospective randomized study of an ultrashort gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone agonist versus a modified suppression protocol for ovarian stimulation in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Human Reproduction 1997;12(7):1403‐8. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/12.7.1403] - DOI - PubMed
Vidal 2013 {published data only}
    1. Vidal. Use of Antagonist Versus Agonist GnRH in Oocyte Recipient Endometrium Preparation. 2013.

References to ongoing studies

Zhang 2013 {published data only}
    1. Zhang JJ, Veen F, Repping S, Wely M, Chang L, Wong S, et al. IVF Clinical Trial of Two Different Treatment Protocols.

Additional references

Al‐Inany 2011
    1. Al‐Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, Broekmans F, Sterrenburg M, Smit J, et al. Gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online) 2011, (5):CD001750. [PUBMED: 21563131] - PubMed
Chavez‐Badiola 2011
    1. Chavez‐Badiola AE, Allahbadla GN. Minimal Stimulation IVF: Milder, Mildest Or Back to Nature. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher (P) Ltd, 2011.
Elder 2011
    1. Elder K, Dale B. In vitro fertilization. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Evers 2002
    1. Evers JLH. Female subfertility. Lancet July 2002;360(9327):151–9. - PubMed
Geraedts 2012
    1. Geraedts JP, Gianaroli L. Embryo selection and IVF. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) 2012; Vol. 27, issue 9:2876; author reply 2877. [PUBMED: 22763374] - PubMed
Heineman 2011
    1. Heineman J, Evers JLH, Massuger LFAG, Steegers EAP. Obstetrie en Gynaecology De voortplanting van de mens. Elsevier Gezondheidszorg, 2011.
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Leeton 1982
    1. Leeton J. The management of infertility: where to stop. Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 1982;1(4):249‐59. [PUBMED: 6821241] - PubMed
Loutradis 2007
    1. Loutradis D, Drakakis P, Vomvolaki E, Antsaklis A. Different ovarian stimulation protocols for women with diminished ovarian reserve. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics December 2007;24(12):597‐611. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-007-9181-2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Loutradis 2008
    1. Loutradis D, Vomvolaki E, Drakakis P. Poor responder protocols for in‐vitro fertilization: options and results. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2008;20(4):374‐8. - PubMed
Naaktgeboren 1985
    1. Naaktgeboren N, Devroey P, Traey E, Wisanto A, Steirteghem AC. Success of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in relation to the causes of infertility. Acta Europaea Fertilitatis 1985;16(4):281‐7. [PUBMED: 2933915] - PubMed
Nargund 2001
    1. Nargund G, Waterstone J, Bland J, Philips Z, Parsons J, Campbell S. Cumulative conception and live birth rates in natural (unstimulated) IVF cycles. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) 2001;16(2):259‐62. [PUBMED: 11157816] - PubMed
Pandian 2010
    1. Pandian Z, McTavish AR, Aucott L, Hamilton MP, Bhattacharya S. Interventions for 'poor responders' to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation (COH) in in‐vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Jan 20;1. - PubMed
Pelinck 2002
    1. Pelinck MJ, Hoek A, Simons AH, Heineman MJ. Efficacy of natural cycle IVF: a review of the literature. Human Reproduction Update 2002;8(2):129‐39. [PUBMED: 12099628] - PubMed
Pelinck 2009
    1. Pelinck MJ. Modified natural cycle IVF: feasibility and results. http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/medicine/2009/m.j.pelinck/?pLan.... Unpublished, 2009.
Rongieres‐Bertrand 1999
    1. Rongieres‐Bertrand C, Olivennes F, Righini C, Fanchin R, Taieb J, Hamamah S, et al. Revival of the natural cycles in in‐vitro fertilization with the use of a new gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist (Cetrorelix): a pilot study with minimal stimulation. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) 1999;14(3):683‐8. [PUBMED: 10221695] - PubMed
Rosen 2008
    1. Rosen MP, Shen S, Dobson AT, Rinaudo PF, McCulloch CE, Cedars MI. A quantitative assessment of follicle size on oocyte developmental competence. Fertility and Sterility 2008;90(3):684‐90. [PUBMED: 18249377] - PMC - PubMed
Sharlip 2002
    1. Sharlip ID, Jarow JP, Belker AM, Lipshultz LI, Sigman M, Thomas AJ, et al. Best practice policies for male infertility. Fertility and Sterility 2002;77(5):873‐82. [PUBMED: 12009338] - PubMed
Verberg 2008
    1. Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Heijnen EM, Broekmans FJ, Klerk C, Fauser BC, et al. Why do couples drop‐out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) 2008;23(9):2050‐5. [PUBMED: 18544578] - PubMed
Wang 2011
    1. Wang SX. The past, present, and future of embryo selection in in vitro fertilization: Frontiers in Reproduction Conference. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 2011; Vol. 84, issue 4:487‐90. [PUBMED: 22180687] - PMC - PubMed
Zayed 1997
    1. Zayed F, Lenton EA, Cooke ID. Natural cycle in‐vitro fertilization in couples with unexplained infertility: impact of various factors on outcome. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) 1997;12(11):2402‐7. [PUBMED: 9436673] - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources