What is the impact of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in subcutaneous injection or intrauterine infusion and during both the fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles on recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis?

Network meta-analysis of four common immunomodulatory therapies for the treatment of patients with thin endometrium

OBEJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of endometrial receptivity and pregnancy outcomes of four common immunomodulatory therapies for patients with thin endometrium.

METHOD

This systematic review and network meta-analysis using a literature search up to January 2024, to identify relevant trials comparing endometrial receptivity and pregnancy outcomes of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), infusion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (IG-CSF), and peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) for patients with thin endometrium. We used surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) to ranked four common immunomodulatory therapies on endometrium thickness, implantation rate (IR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and live birth rate (LBR). RoB2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

The pooled results of 22 studies showed that hCG (mean difference [MD]: 3.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46-4.64) and PRP (MD: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.20-1.76) significantly increase endometrium thickness. The hCG was the best among the IG-CSF (MD = -2.56, 95% CI = -4.30 to -0.82), PBMC (MD = -2.75, 95% CI = -5.49 to -0.01), and PRP (MD = -2.07, 95% CI = -3.84 to -0.30) in increasing endometrium thickness. However, IG-CSF and PRP significantly improved IR (IG-CSF: risk ratio (RR; IG-CSF: RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.06-1.67; PRP: RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.19-2.23), and LBR (IG-CSF: RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.16-2.02; PRP: RR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.08-2.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence reveals that hCG and subcutaneous or intrauterine CSF (SG-CSF) may be the best treatment options for current thin endometrium patients. However, future high-quality and large-scale studies are necessary to validate our findings.

Subcutaneous injection granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is superior to intrauterine infusion on patients with recurrent implantation failure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Although both subcutaneous injection and intrauterine infusion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) have been reported to improve pregnancy outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF), how to administer it is still no consensus. The study aimed to investigate which administration route is optimal. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) from inception to April 10, 2023, with language in both English and Chinese. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the effectiveness of G-CSF to treat patients with RIF were included in this network meta-analysis (NMA). The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) in pregnancy outcomes (implantation rate, IR; clinical pregnancy rate, CPR; live birth rate, LBR; miscarriage rate, MR; ectopic pregnancy rate, EPR) were summarized by NMA with a random-effects model. A total of 1360 RIF patients from 14 RCTs were included in this NMA, with no publication bias and small sample effects. No direct evidence compared the effectiveness of different administration routes of G-CSF on IR, LBR and MR. Both subcutaneous injection and intrauterine infusion of G-CSF increased the IR (OR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.10-7.24; OR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.50-3.07, respectively) and CPR (OR = 2.79, 95% CI: 1.86-4.17; OR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.30-2.33, respectively) in patients with RIF. According to SUCRA, subcutaneous injection is more likely to be the optimal medication administration route. However, more high-quality studies were also needed to support these, especially IR and LBR.

The value of G-CSF in women experienced at least one implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Despite the developments of in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocols, implantation failure remains a challenging problem, owing to the unbalance between the embryo, endometrium, and immune system interactions. Effective treatments are urgently required to improve successful implantation. Recently, many researchers have focused on granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to regulate immune response and embryo-endometrium cross-talk. However, previous studies have reported inconsistent findings on the efficacy of G-CSF therapy on implantation failure. The objective of this review was to further explore the effects of G-CSF according to administration dosage and timing among women who experienced at least one implantation failure.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials of G-CSF on implantation failure up to July 21, 2023. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the heterogeneity of the studies with the I2 index was analyzed.

Results

We identified a total of 2031 studies and finally included 10 studies in the systematic review and meta-analysis. G-CSF administration improved the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR), and live birth rate (LBR) in women with at least one implantation failure. Subgroup analyses showed that G-CSF treatment could exert good advantages in improving CPR [OR=2.49, 95%CI (1.56, 3.98), I2 = 0%], IR [OR=2.82, 95%CI (1.29, 6.15)], BPR [OR=3.30, 95%CI (1.42, 7.67)] and LBR [OR=3.16, 95%CI (1.61, 6.22), I2 = 0%] compared with the blank control group. However, compared with placebo controls, G-CSF showed beneficial effects on CPR [OR=1.71, 95%CI (1.04, 2.84), I2 = 38%] and IR [OR=2.01, 95%CI (1.29, 3.15), I2 = 24%], but not on LBR. In addition, >150μg of G-CSF treatment increased CPR [OR=2.22, 95%CI (1.47, 3.35), I2 = 0%], IR [OR=2.67, 95%CI (1.47, 4.82), I2 = 0%] and BPR [OR=2.02, 95%CI (1.17, 3.47), I2 = 22%], while ≤150μg of G-CSF treatment improved miscarriage rate (MR) [OR=0.14, 95%CI (0.05, 0.38), I2 = 0%] and LBR [OR=2.65, 95%CI (1.56, 4.51), I2 = 0%]. Moreover, G-CSF administration on the day of embryo transfer (ET) could increase CPR [OR=2.81, 95%CI (1.37, 5.75), I2 = 0%], but not on the day of ovum pick-up (OPU) or human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) injection.

Conclusion

G-CSF has a beneficial effect on pregnancy outcomes to some extent among women who experienced at least one implantation failure, and the administration dosage and timing influence the effect size.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447046.

The Effect of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor on Endometrial Receptivity of Implantation Failure Mouse

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of G-CSF on the endometrial receptivity of implantation failure mice. Sixty female mice were treated mifepristone to establish an implant failure model. The treatment groups received different doses of G-CSF. Endometrial tissue and serum were collected on day 5 after mating. The abundance of pinopodes on the endometrium was observed by scanning electron microscopy. The expressions of LPAR3, COX2, and HOXA10 were detected by RT-qPCR and Western blotting. Serum levels of E2, P, VEGF, LIF, TNF-α and IL-10 were measured by ELISA. The expressions of VEGF, CD34, CD57, TNF-α, and IL-10 were assessed by immunohistochemistry. Immunofluorescence analysis was performed to determine the number of CD57, Treg, and Th17 cells. G-CSF increased implantation and pregnancy rates of mifepristone-induced implantation failure mice, with the most significant effect seen at the intermediate dose. G-CSF increased the serum levels of E2 and P, the abundance of endometrial pinopodes, and the level of LIF in the endometrium. It also promoted the expression of VEGF, HOXA10, LPAR3, and COX2. Moreover, G-CSF reduced the level of CD57 cells and the ratio of Th17/Treg cells in endometrium. G-CSF reduced the inflammatory factor TNF-α, but IL-10 did not change significantly. G-CSF can enhance embryo implantation rate and pregnancy rate and improve endometrial receptivity by attenuating degeneration of pinopodes, upregulating estrogen and progesterone, facilitating angiogenesis, maintaining immune cell homeostasis, and reducing the production of inflammatory cytokines in implantation failure mouse.

Aberrant NK cell profile in gestational diabetes mellitus with fetal growth restriction

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a gestational disorder characterized by hyperglycemia, that can lead to dysfunction of diverse cells in the body, especially the immune cells. It has been reported that immune cells, specifically natural killer (NK) cells, play a crucial role in normal pregnancy. However, it remains unknown how hyperglycemia affects NK cell dysfunction thus participates in the development of GDM. In this experiment, GDM mice were induced by an intraperitoneal injection of streptozotocin (STZ) after pregnancy and it has been found that the intrauterine growth restriction occurred in mice with STZ-induced GDM, accompanied by the changed proportion and function of NK cells. The percentage of cytotoxic CD27-CD11b+ NK cells was significantly increased, while the proportion of nourished CD27-CD11b- NK cells was significantly reduced in the decidua of GDM mice. Likewise, the same trend appeared in the peripheral blood NK cell subsets of GDM patients. What's more, after intrauterine reinfusion of NK cells to GDM mice, the fetal growth restriction was alleviated and the proportion of NK cells was restored. Our findings provide a theoretical and experimental basis for further exploring the pathogenesis of GDM.

Efficacy of the long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist long protocol on IVF/ICSI outcomes of patients with repeated implantation failure

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to investigate the effect of long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) long protocol on in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) outcomes of patients with repeated implantation failure (RIF).

METHODS

The present study was carried out from June 1, 2016 to June 30, 2021. A total of 665 patients with RIF were enrolled into the study and classified by the ovarian stimulation protocols. The outcome parameters were compared in each group. In addition, we evaluated the expression of homeobox A10 (HOXA10), integrin β3 and leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) in endometrial tissues between groups by quantitative RT-PCR.

RESULTS

Patients who received the long-acting GnRHa long protocol had significantly higher clinical pregnancy rates (58.0%, 41.7% and 39.9%, respectively; P = 0.008 and 0.003), implantation rates (38.1%, 30.3%, and 30.1%, respectively; P = 0.001 and <0.001) and live birth rates (50.3%, 36.3%, and 31.3%, respectively; P = 0.020 and 0.002) compared with the short-acting GnRHa long protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol. In addition, we found that long-acting GnRHa could improve the expression of HOXA10 (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The long-acting GnRHa long protocol could improve endometrial receptivity and IVF/ICSI clinical outcomes of RIF patients compared with the short-acting GnRHa long protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol.

Management strategies following implantation failure of euploid embryos

Background

Euploid blastocyst implantation failure may result from embryonic factors undetectable by preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A); however, various nonembryonic factors can also intricately interfere with implantation. This review seeks to clarify evidence-based testing and treatments for implantation failure after euploid embryo transfer.

Methods

We conducted a review of the literature on implantation failure after euploid embryo transfer or multiple embryo transfer cycles, which mainly included systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Results

The recommended tests for implantation failure include (1) hysteroscopy, (2) endometrial CD138 immunohistochemistry and bacterial culture, (3) serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3, and (4) thrombophilia screening. Based on diagnostic findings, the following treatments have been recommended: (1) antibiotics for chronic endometritis, (2) vitamin D replacement, (3) lifestyle modification, and (4) low-dose aspirin starting from the postimplantation period for thrombophilia. Moreover, frozen-thawed single euploid blastocyst transfer using assisted hatching and hyaluronan-enriched transfer medium may support embryo implantation.

Conclusion

To ensure a successful pregnancy in subsequent embryo transfers, simple, inexpensive, and evidence-based tests and treatments should be selected.

Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†

STUDY QUESTION

Which add-ons are safe and effective to be used in ART treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Forty-two recommendations were formulated on the use of add-ons in the diagnosis of fertility problems, the IVF laboratory and clinical management of IVF treatment.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The innovative nature of ART combined with the extremely high motivation of the patients has opened the door to the wide application of what has become known as 'add-ons' in reproductive medicine. These supplementary options are available to patients in addition to standard fertility procedures, typically incurring an additional cost. A diverse array of supplementary options is made available, encompassing tests, drugs, equipment, complementary or alternative therapies, laboratory procedures, and surgical interventions. These options share the common aim of stating to enhance pregnancy or live birth rates, mitigate the risk of miscarriage, or expedite the time to achieving pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

ESHRE aimed to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations focusing on the safety and efficacy of add-ons currently used in fertility procedures in order to improve the quality of care for patients with infertility.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

ESHRE appointed a European multidisciplinary working group consisting of practising clinicians, embryologists, and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of infertility. Patient representatives were included in the working group. To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, recommendations were based on the professional experience and consensus of the working group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 46 independent international reviewers. A total of 272 comments were received and incorporated where relevant.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The multidisciplinary working group formulated 42 recommendations in three sections; diagnosis and diagnostic tests, laboratory tests and interventions, and clinical management.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Of the 42 recommendations, none could be based on high-quality evidence and only four could be based on moderate-quality evidence, implicating that 95% of the recommendations are supported only by low-quality randomized controlled trials, observational data, professional experience, or consensus of the development group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These guidelines offer valuable direction for healthcare professionals who are responsible for the care of patients undergoing ART treatment for infertility. Their purpose is to promote safe and effective ART treatment, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on realistic expectations. The guidelines aim to ensure that patients are fully informed about the various treatment options available to them and the likelihood of any additional treatment or test to improve the chance of achieving a live birth.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESHRE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. K.L. reports speakers fees from Merck and was part of a research study by Vitrolife (unpaid). T.E. reports consulting fees from Gynemed, speakers fees from Gynemed and is part of the scientific advisory board of Hamilton Thorne. N.P.P. reports grants from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare, speakers fees from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare. S.R.H. declares being managing director of Fertility Europe, a not-for-profit organization receiving financial support from ESHRE. I.S. is a scientific advisor for and has stock options from Alife Health, is co-founder of IVFvision LTD (unpaid) and received speakers' fee from the 2023 ART Young Leader Prestige workshop in China. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck A/S, consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos and Merck A/S, speakers fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Theramex and Organon, travel fees from Gedeon Richter. The other authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPRs) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or bedeemedinclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results.Theydo not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type.Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

ESHRE good practice recommendations on recurrent implantation failure

STUDY QUESTION

How should recurrent implantation failure (RIF) in patients undergoing ART be defined and managed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

This is the first ESHRE good practice recommendations paper providing a definition for RIF together with recommendations on how to investigate causes and contributing factors, and how to improve the chances of a pregnancy.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

RIF is a challenge in the ART clinic, with a multitude of investigations and interventions offered and applied in clinical practice, often without biological rationale or with unequivocal evidence of benefit.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

This document was developed according to a predefined methodology for ESHRE good practice recommendations. Recommendations are supported by data from the literature, if available, and the results of a previously published survey on clinical practice in RIF and the expertise of the working group. A literature search was performed in PubMed and Cochrane focussing on 'recurrent reproductive failure', 'recurrent implantation failure', and 'repeated implantation failure'.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

The ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure included eight members representing the ESHRE Special Interest Groups for Implantation and Early Pregnancy, Reproductive Endocrinology, and Embryology, with an independent chair and an expert in statistics. The recommendations for clinical practice were formulated based on the expert opinion of the working group, while taking into consideration the published data and results of the survey on uptake in clinical practice. The draft document was then open to ESHRE members for online peer review and was revised in light of the comments received.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The working group recommends considering RIF as a secondary phenomenon of ART, as it can only be observed in patients undergoing IVF, and that the following description of RIF be adopted: 'RIF describes the scenario in which the transfer of embryos considered to be viable has failed to result in a positive pregnancy test sufficiently often in a specific patient to warrant consideration of further investigations and/or interventions'. It was agreed that the recommended threshold for the cumulative predicted chance of implantation to identify RIF for the purposes of initiating further investigation is 60%. When a couple have not had a successful implantation by a certain number of embryo transfers and the cumulative predicted chance of implantation associated with that number is greater than 60%, then they should be counselled on further investigation and/or treatment options. This term defines clinical RIF for which further actions should be considered. Nineteen recommendations were formulated on investigations when RIF is suspected, and 13 on interventions. Recommendations were colour-coded based on whether the investigations/interventions were recommended (green), to be considered (orange), or not recommended, i.e. not to be offered routinely (red).

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

While awaiting the results of further studies and trials, the ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure recommends identifying RIF based on the chance of successful implantation for the individual patient or couple and to restrict investigations and treatments to those supported by a clear rationale and data indicating their likely benefit.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This article provides not only good practice advice but also highlights the investigations and interventions that need further research. This research, when well-conducted, will be key to making progress in the clinical management of RIF.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The meetings and technical support for this project were funded by ESHRE. N.M. declared consulting fees from ArtPRED (The Netherlands) and Freya Biosciences (Denmark); Honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, Merck, Abbott, and IBSA; being co-founder of Verso Biosense. He is Co-Chief Editor of Reproductive Biomedicine Online (RBMO). D.C. declared being an Associate Editor of Human Reproduction Update, and declared honoraria for lectures from Merck, Organon, IBSA, and Fairtility; support for attending meetings from Cooper Surgical, Fujifilm Irvine Scientific. G.G. declared that he or his institution received financial or non-financial support for research, lectures, workshops, advisory roles, or travelling from Ferring, Merck, Gedeon-Richter, PregLem, Abbott, Vifor, Organon, MSD, Coopersurgical, ObsEVA, and ReprodWissen. He is an Editor of the journals Archives of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biomedicine Online, and Editor in Chief of Journal Gynäkologische Endokrinologie. He is involved in guideline developments and quality control on national and international level. G.L. declared he or his institution received honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, Vianex/Organon, and MSD. He is an Associate Editor of Human Reproduction Update, immediate past Coordinator of Special Interest Group for Reproductive Endocrinology of ESHRE and has been involved in Guideline Development Groups of ESHRE and national fertility authorities. D.J.M. declared being an Associate Editor for Human Reproduction Open and statistical Advisor for Reproductive Biomedicine Online. B.T. declared being shareholder of Reprognostics and she or her institution received financial or non-financial support for research, clinical trials, lectures, workshops, advisory roles or travelling from support for attending meetings from Ferring, MSD, Exeltis, Merck Serono, Bayer, Teva, Theramex and Novartis, Astropharm, Ferring. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type. Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

Treatment options for endometrial hypoproliferation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endometrial hypoproliferation refers to the failure of the endometrium to reach optimal thickness during fresh or frozen embryo transfer cycles in women undergoing infertility treatment with in-vitro fertilization (IVF). This review discusses the treatment options for endometrial hypoproliferation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Apart from factors related to the embryo quality, ultrasonographic findings associated with the endometrium, such as endometrial thickness, endometrial pattern and subendometrial blood flow, are considered key factors associated with the outcome of assisted reproductive treatment. To date, a consensus has not been reached regarding the definition of thin endometrium, while thresholds of 6, 7 or 8 mm have been used in the literature. Strategies to increase endometrial thickness can be reviewed in three groups: endocrine approaches, vitamins & supplements, and new experimental therapeutic interventions. Some of the recently introduced experimental therapeutic interventions such as platelet-rich plasma injection, stem cell treatment and tissue bioengineering are exciting potential therapies that need to be further studied.

SUMMARY

Despite a large number of publications on the topic, diagnosing and treating endometrial hypoproliferation remains a challenge. Well designed studies are needed to establish a widely accepted endometrial thickness cut-off value below which endometrial hypoproliferation is diagnosed and to generate meaningful data that would allow an evidence-based discussion of available therapeutic options with patients.

Immune Cell Functionality during Decidualization and Potential Clinical Application

Due to a vast influx in the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle, leukocytes represent 40-50% of the decidua at the time of implantation. Their importance for the implantation, maintenance of pregnancy, and parturition are known yet not fully understood. Thus, in idiopathic infertility, decidual immune-related factors are speculated to be the cause. In this review, the immune cell functions in the decidua were summarized, and clinical diagnostics, as well as interventions, were discussed. There is a rising number of commercially available diagnostic tools. However, the intervention options are still limited and/or poorly studied. In order for us to make big steps towards the proper use of reproductive immunology findings, we need to understand the mechanisms and especially support translational research.

Efficacy of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for infertility undergoing IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for infertility and recurrent spontaneous abortion.

METHODS

Existing research was searched in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library till Dec 2021. Randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared G-CSF administration with the control group in infertility women undergoing IVF were included. The primary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rate; the secondary outcomes included live birth rate, abortion ratebiochemical pregnancy rate, embryo implantation rate, as well as endometrial thickness.

RESULT(S)

20 RCTs were included in this study. G-CSF increased the clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.85; 95% CI: 1.07, 3.18) and the endometrial thickness (MD = 2.25; 95% CI: 1.58,2.92;) in patients with thin endometrium undergoing IVF. G-CSF increased the biochemical pregnancy rate (RR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.54, 2.93), the embryo implantation rate (RR = 2.51; 95% CI: 1.82, 3.47) and the clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.93; 95% CI: 1.63, 2.29) in patients with a history of repeated implantation failure undergoing IVF. No differences were found in pregnancy outcomes of general IVF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is likely to be a potential option for infertility women undergoing IVF with thin endometrium or recurrent implantation failure .

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered (The PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022360161).

The therapeutic effects and optimal timing of granulocyte colony stimulating factor intrauterine administration during IVF-ET

Most of embryos fail to produce live offspring during In Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer (IVF-ET) procedure. There is a dearth of research activity addressing this problem despite the significant population of women suffering from repeated implantation failure after transfer of high-quality of embryos. As a clinically accessible option, granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is often used for the treatment to improve the rates of embryo implantation. However, there are currently no evidence-based standardized protocol for the clinical use of G-CSF. G-CSF was administered into one side of mouse uterine horns and saline was infused into the other side of horns as a control. Intrauterine G-CSF administration showed maximal effects 24 h after administration in enhancing endometrial receptivity and subsequent increase of angiogenesis by demonstrating elevated integrin β3 and OPN and reduced cytotoxicity of NK cells. Furthermore, G-CSF administration 24 h prior to embryo transfer promoted the stability of attached embryos at the early stage of implantation in vitro. Our findings suggest as new consensus criteria providing a potential therapeutic strategy of the clinical use of G-CSF to achieve maximal effects of IVF-ET for patients who are suffering from repeated implantation failure with the problems with endometrial receptivity.

Efficacy of intrauterine infusion therapy before embryo transfer in recurrent implantation failure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Previous studies of intrauterine infusion therapy in recurrent implantation failure (RIF) patients have shown conflicting results, and there is a lack of head-to-head horizontal comparisons between different drugs. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of four intrauterine infusion drugs, including human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP), in improving pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients through the network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of preimplantation intrauterine infusion for RIF were searched in the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline and CINAHL. Meanwhile, relevant data were extracted and Stata 15.0 software was applied to statistical analysis. A total of 21 studies with a sample size of 2917 cases were included in this study. Clinical pregnancy rate network meta-analysis showed that, intrauterine infusion of all four drugs is significantly better than the blank and placebo groups, while only PRP could significantly increase live birth rate compared with the blank and placebo groups. The SUCRA plots of clinical pregnancy and live birth rates showed a higher ranking of PRP and PBMCs. Early abortion intervention analysis found that only G-CSF is significantly better than the blank and placebo groups, and the SUCRA plot of G-CSF showed the highest ranking. All these findings confirmed that all four intrauterine infusion drugs can improve pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients to varying degrees, with PRP being the most effective. Further prospective, large-scale and high-quality RCTs are still necessary to determine the exact subgroups of benefit for the different drugs.

Efficacy and safety of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Published data regarding efficacy of intrauterine perfusion of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for patients with unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion (URSA) is inconclusive. This study aims at evaluating the efficacy and safety of G-CSF in URSA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched including Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Wanfang Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (last search was performed on Sep 10th, 2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted with R-language software. Combined relative risk (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate efficacy and safety.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, the efficacy of G-CSF in the treatment of URSA patients was significant in conception rate (RR=1.34, 95%CI: 1.03-1.74, P = 0.028), and was none of significance in live birth rate (RR=1.35, 95%CI: 0.99-1.84, P = 0.06). Subgroup analysis showed that the ovulation-period-medication was the protective factor for conception rate, while "Ethnicity Asian" and "ovulation-period medication" were the protective factors for live birth rate. When it comes to the safety of rhG-CSF on URSA, meta-analysis showed that rhG-CSF had no significant effect on the incidence of adverse events (AEs) (RR=1.13, 95% CI: 0.89-1.43, P = 0.322), and subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of AEs in each subgroup did not increase significantly (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Based on our meta-analysis, intrauterine perfusion of rhG-CSF in ovulation period is an effective and safe way to improve conception rate in URSA.

Recurrent implantation failure: A comprehensive summary from etiology to treatment

Implantation is the first step in human reproduction. Successful implantation depends on the crosstalk between embryo and endometrium. Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is a clinical phenomenon characterized by a lack of implantation after the transfer of several embryos and disturbs approximately 10% couples undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Despite increasing literature on RIF, there is still no widely accepted definition or standard protocol for the diagnosis and treatment of RIF. Progress in predicting and preventing RIF has been hampered by a lack of widely accepted definitions. Most couples with RIF can become pregnant after clinical intervention. The prognosis for couples with RIF is related to maternal age. RIF can be caused by immunology, thrombophilias, endometrial receptivity, microbiome, anatomical abnormalities, male factors, and embryo aneuploidy. It is important to determine the most possible etiologies, and individualized treatment aimed at the primary cause seems to be an effective method for increasing the implantation rate. Couples with RIF require psychological support and appropriate clinical intervention. Further studies are required to evaluate diagnostic method and he effectiveness of each therapy, and guide clinical treatment.

Intralipid infusion therapy as an adjunct treatment in women experiencing adenomyosis-related infertility

Background

Currently, there is some evidence that adenomyosis patients using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist long downregulation (LDR) prior to embryo transfer may improve in vitro fertilization (IVF) success rate, but not to the baseline expected success where there is no adenomyosis. Given the association between adenomyosis and an aberrant endometrial immune environment, many physicians also use prednisolone or Intralipid adjuvant treatments in combination with GnRH agonist therapy, despite neither being of proven benefit.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the addition of prednisolone or Intralipid immune therapy to GnRH agonist LDR improves fertility outcomes in patients with adenomyosis.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of 116 consecutive adenomyosis patients who underwent their first transfer of a genetically screened euploid embryo between January 2019 and December 2020 at a private IVF clinic.

Results

There was no difference in maternal age, body mass index, number of embryo's transferred and gravidity or parity among the three treatment groups. Patients who received Intralipid had a poorer prognosis with a longer duration of infertility (4 years) and a higher number of previous embryo transfers (ETs, 5 previous ETs) compared to the comparison groups. Logistic regression analysis adjustment for all covariates revealed that LDR plus Intralipid therapy produced significantly higher live birth rates (LBRs; 60%) compared to LDR alone (40% LBR); yet, the addition of prednisolone to GnRH agonist LDR (30% LBR) provided no additional live birth benefit.

Conclusion

In this retrospective analysis, we showed Intralipid adjuvant treatment in combination with GnRH agonist therapy in adenomyosis patients undergoing IVF resulted in a LBR expected in women without adenomyosis using preimplantation genetic testing screened embryos. This benefit was not seen when using prednisolone as an adjuvant to GnRH agonist LDR. Future randomized clinical trials will be required to confirm the therapeutic benefit of Intralipid in combination with GnRH agonist therapy.

Molecular Clues to Understanding Causes of Human-Assisted Reproduction Treatment Failures and Possible Treatment Options

More than forty years after the first birth following in vitro fertilization (IVF), the success rates of IVF and of IVF-derived assisted reproduction techniques (ART) still remain relatively low. Interindividual differences between infertile couples and the nature of the problems underlying their infertility appear to be underestimated nowadays. Consequently, the molecular basis of each couple’s reproductive function and of its disturbances is needed to offer an individualized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to each couple, instead of applying a standard or minimally adapted protocols to everybody. Interindividual differences include sperm and oocyte function and health status, early (preimplantation) embryonic development, the optimal window of uterine receptivity for the implanting embryo, the function of the corpus luteum as the main source of progesterone production during the first days of pregnancy, the timing of the subsequent luteoplacental shift in progesterone production, and aberrant reactions of the uterine immune cells to the implanting and recently implanted embryos. In this article, the molecular basis that underlies each of these abnormalities is reviewed and discussed, with the aim to design specific treatment options to be used for each of them.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in reproductive-related disease: Function, regulation and therapeutic effect

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is one of the cytokines which plays important roles in embryo implantation and normal pregnancy. At the maternal-fetal interface, G-CSF can be synthesized by multiple cells, and participates in regulation of trophoblast development, endometrial decidualization, placental metabolism and angiogenesis. Moreover, as an important medium of intercellular communication, G-CSF has also been shown to exert key roles in crosstalk between cellular components at the maternal-fetal interface. Recently, our study demonstrated that G-CSF derived from M2 macrophage could promote trophoblasts invasion and migration through activating PI3K/AKT/Erk1/2 pathway, thereby involving in normal pregnancy program. Herein, we will summarize the role and regulation of G-CSF in normal pregnancy and reproductive-related disease, and the clinical applications of G-CSF in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with thin endometrium, repeated implantation failure, and women suffered with recurrent spontaneous abortion.