Effect of autologous platelet-rich plasma for treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a randomized controlled trial

Is it justified to offer intrauterine infusion of autologous PRP in women with repeated implantation failure?

In recent years, an increased interest in the efficacy of intrauterine infusion of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in women with repeated implantation failure (RIF) has resulted in the publication of 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 11 meta-analyses. Although these meta-analyses support an increase in pregnancy rates after intrauterine infusion of autologous PRP, the low quality of the available original clinical studies along with concerns regarding their trustworthiness seriously questions their internal validity and does not allow for definitive conclusions to be drawn. In addition, the variability in the definition of RIF used in the individual studies limits their external validity, renders the pooling of the results problematic, and, overall, complicates the extrapolation of the results published. The variability in the definition of RIF has been recently addressed by the ESHRE, which published an evidence-based definition of RIF to facilitate the evaluation of interventions in these patients. Taking into consideration this definition, which identifies a real clinical problem, evaluation of intrauterine infusion of PRP in the published literature has not so far been performed explicitly in patients with RIF. The potential of intrauterine infusion of autologous PRP to improve outcomes for women with RIF remains an important area of research in ART. However, the current evidence is insufficient to inform clinical practice, highlighting the need for well-designed studies to provide clearer guidance.

Comparative efficacy of intrauterine infusion treatments for recurrent implantation failure: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is a significant challenge in assisted reproductive technology (ART), affecting many women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). This study aims to compare the efficacy of various intrauterine infusion treatments, including granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), in improving clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rate (LBR), and miscarriage rate (MR) in women with RIF.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in multiple databases, including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of intrauterine infusion treatments for RIF. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to compare the outcomes of different treatments.

RESULTS

A total of 25 RCTs involving 3035 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The treatments involved G-CSF, PRP, HCG, PBMCs, placebo, and blank control. The results of the network meta-analysis for CPR and LBR were statistically significant among treatments, but there was no statistical significance in MR. The surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking of CPR and LBR showed that intrauterine infusion treatments of G-CSF, PRP, HCG, and PBMCs were much better than placebo and blank. The SUCRA values of CPR were ranked probabilistically from high to low as follows: PRP (84.5%) > PBMCs (76.5%) > G-CSF (65.7%) > HCG (52.5%) > placebo (20.8%) > blank (0.1%). The SUCRA values of LBR were ranked probabilistically from high to low as follows: PRP (81.4%) > PBMCs (64.6%) > G-CSF (58.0%) > HCG (48.7%) > placebo (42.4%) > blank (4.9%).

CONCLUSION

All these findings confirmed that intrauterine infusions of PRP and PBMCs significantly improve pregnancy outcomes in women with RIF. PRP emerged as the most effective treatment. However, to establish the most effective approach for managing patients with RIF, future research should prioritize direct and robust comparisons between PRP and other therapeutic strategies, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of their relative efficacy.

Association between placental location and cord insertion site with pre-eclampsia: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The relationship between placental location in pregnancies without previa and adverse pregnancy outcomes has not been well studied. Additionally, the impact of abnormal cord insertion sites remains controversial. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore the adverse outcomes associated with placental location and abnormal cord insertion in nulliparous women and to assess their impact on pregnancy outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single tertiary hospital between January 2019 and June 2022. The study included nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies who delivered live infants and had available data on placental location and umbilical cord insertion site from a second- or third-trimester ultrasound. Placental location was categorized as anterior or posterior using transabdominal ultrasonography. The association between placental location/cord insertion site and pre-eclampsia was evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analysis. We compared the area under the curve to evaluate the impact of placental location and cord insertion site on pre-eclampsia.

RESULTS

A total of 2219 pregnancies were included in the study. Pre-eclampsia occurred significantly more frequently in the anterior group than in the posterior group (8.21% vs. 3.04%, p < .001). In multivariate analysis investigating the association between placental location and pre-eclampsia, anterior placenta and marginal cord insertion showed increased odds ratios for pre-eclampsia of 3.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.68-6.58) and 3.64 (95% CI 1.90-6.97), respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to predict pre-eclampsia using independent factors from multivariate analyses. Model I, including maternal age, pre-pregnancy body mass index, in vitro fertilization, chronic hypertension, overt diabetes, kidney disease, and hematologic diseases, achieved an area under the ROC curve of 0.70 (95% CI 0.65-0.75). Adding cord insertion site and placental location to the model (Model II) improved its predictive performance, resulting in an area under the ROC curve of 0.749 (95% CI 0.70-0.79, p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior placenta and marginal cord insertion were associated with an increased risk of pre-eclampsia. Further studies on prospective cohorts are necessary to validate these findings.

Genetic landscape of thrombophilia in recurrent miscarriages

The etiology of recurrent miscarriage (RM) is extremely heterogeneous, encompassing genetic, immunological, anatomical, endocrine, thrombophilic, infectious, and uterine abnormalities. Thrombophilia is a major contributor to pregnancy complications, potentially harming the fetus and jeopardizing the continuation of pregnancy. Therefore, successful pregnancy outcomes depend on maintaining a delicate balance between coagulation and fibrinolytic factors, crucial for ensuring the adjustment of the basal plate to facilitate adequate placental perfusion. Despite numerous studies shedding light on the role of thrombophilic factors and genetic variations in RM, the exact pathogenesis remains unclear. It is imperative to systematically rule out thrombophilia and other related factors responsible for pregnancy disorders and RMs to guide appropriate and active management strategies. Addressing thrombophilia continues to present challenges in terms of effective treatment. The current review aims to address the heterogeneity of RM as a therapeutic challenge, emphasizing the need for standardized diagnostic tests and welldesigned multicenter research trials to gather robust, evidence-based data on thrombophilic causes of RM and provide effective treatment. The goal is to enhance the understanding of thrombophilic factors and genetic landscapes associated with RM through various approaches, including candidate gene studies, genome-wide association studies, and high-throughput sequencing. Meta-analyses have underscored the significance of genetic aberrations in RM, highlighting the necessity for identifying critical mutations implicated in the etiopathogenesis of miscarriages to pave the way for implementation of targeted clinical therapies.

Revitalizing female fertility: platelet-rich plasma - hype or hope?

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained popularity as an experimental tool in regenerative medicine, with potential applications in reproductive medicine. This review will assess the existing literature on the role of PRP in female fertility enhancement, focusing on ovarian rejuvenation and increased endometrial thickness. PRP is being explored as a treatment for recurrent implantation failure, primary ovarian insufficiency and poor ovarian response. While the influence of PRP on endometrial thickness and implantation success is postulated, its effectiveness remains the subject of debate due to protocol variability and unclear patient selection criteria. This narrative review includes 36 articles published before December 2022, and highlights the lack of comprehensive molecular studies examining the impact of PRP on reproductive capacity. This review underscores the importance of standardizing PRP preparation protocols in reproductive medicine. However, challenges persist, and there is a need for well-planned randomized controlled trials and a deeper understanding of the patient population that would gain the greatest benefit from PRP treatment. Clarifying these aspects is crucial to improve outcomes for low-prognosis patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) for Endometrial Treatment Efficacy and Safety in Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Comprehensive Review

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is among the new ground-breaking methods called for endometrial disorders detected in assisted reproductive technology (ART). This research work takes account of both a systematic literature review and an exploration of the molecular connections. The report aims to present the capabilities and benefits of the PRP in ART and the nonconformance and dangers involved in its use in ART. However, all these stages of ART need conducive endometrium, live micro embryo, and coordinated interaction between the blastocyst and the uterus. Despite all ART has achieved, implantation failure still exists as a problem having one quarter being attributed to the absence of the endometrial receptivity level. The review points to a corresponding increase in the role of autologous PRP in promoting cell proliferation, neo-angiogenesis, and anti-inflammatory effects to facilitate effective endometrial receptivity. The outcome of prior trials with the PRP approach proved to be positive for women with adenomyosis, thin endometrial lining, recurring implantation failure, chronic endometritis, and Asherman's syndrome. Challenges still exist in the proper placement of PRP for all women with infertility problems as well as how it works for individuals with blood disorders and infections. This study will look into the safest number of doses, the time of acting, and the possible future health hazards that both mother and child may face.

Autologous platelet-rich plasma for assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) consists of plasma and a concentrate of platelets extracted from fresh whole blood of the person being treated. Research has suggested that intrauterine or intraovarian infusion/injection of PRP before embryo transfer may improve endometrial receptivity and response to ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproduction. We compared these interventions to standard treatment, placebo, or other interventions (mechanical or pharmacological).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine and intraovarian infusion/injection of platelet-rich plasma in infertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Epistemonikos database in January 2023. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the trial authors and experts in the field for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the application of PRP in the uterine cavity, ovaries, or both versus no intervention, placebo, or any other intervention (either mechanical or pharmacological) in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including use of the updated risk of bias tool (RoB 2). The primary outcomes were live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) and miscarriage. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, complications of the procedure, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, preterm delivery, and fetal abnormality. We estimated the average effect of the interventions by fitting a Der Simonian-Laird's random-effects meta-analysis model. We reported pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We restricted the primary analyses to trials at low risk of bias for the outcomes and performed sensitivity analyses that included all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 parallel-group RCTs that recruited a total of 1069 women. We identified three different comparison groups. Using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for almost all outcomes. Intrauterine injection/infusion of platelet-rich plasma versus no intervention or placebo Nine studies evaluated intrauterine PRP versus no intervention or placebo. Eight included women with at least two or three previous implantation failures. Only one was assessed at low risk of bias for each outcome. This study provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP injection versus no intervention on live birth (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.14; 94 women) and miscarriage (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.09; 94 women). If the likelihood of live birth following no intervention is assumed to be 17%, then the likelihood following intrauterine PRP would be 7% to 40%; and if the risk of miscarriage following no intervention is 4%, then the risk following intrauterine PRP would be 1% to 24%. When we analyzed all studies (regardless of risk of bias), we found very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with placebo or no intervention on live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.86; I² = 54%; 6 studies, 564 women) and miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.01; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 504 women). The study at low risk of bias provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with no intervention on clinical pregnancy (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.76; 94 women) and ectopic pregnancy (OR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.95; 94 women). The synthesis of all studies provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with placebo or no intervention on clinical pregnancy (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.50 to 3.27; I² = 24%; 9 studies, 824 women), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.68, 95% CI 0.81 to 8.88; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 240 women), and ectopic pregnancy (OR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.95; 1 study, 94 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intrauterine infusion of PRP may increase the risk of preterm delivery compared with no intervention (OR 8.02, 95% CI 1.72 to 37.33; 1 study, 120 women; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported pain, infection, allergic reaction, fetal growth restriction, or fetal abnormality. Intrauterine infusion of platelet-rich plasma versus intrauterine infusion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor Two RCTs evaluated intrauterine PRP versus intrauterine granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF); both included women with thin endometrium, and neither was judged at low risk of bias for any outcome. We are uncertain about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with intrauterine G-CSF on live birth (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.81; 1 study, 132 women; very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage (OR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.96; 1 study, 132 women; very low-certainty evidence), and clinical pregnancy (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.35; 2 studies, 172 women; very low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported adverse outcomes other than miscarriage. Intraovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma versus no intervention One RCT evaluated PRP injection into both ovaries versus no intervention; it was judged at high risk of bias for the two outcomes it reported. We are uncertain about the effect of intraovarian PRP injection compared with no intervention on ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.63; 73 women; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.60; 73 women; very low-certainty evidence). The study examined no safety outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the effect of intrauterine or intraovarian administration of PRP on outcomes of assisted reproduction technology in infertile women. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution. Only one of the 12 included studies was judged at low risk of bias. Other limitations of the included trials were failure to report live birth, poor reporting of methods, lack of prospective protocol registration, low precision due to the small number of enrolled participants, indirectness due to the specific subpopulations and settings studied, and insufficient or absent safety data.

Role of Platelet-rich Plasma in Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Control Trials

Background

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is a challenging clinical situation and various strategies have been tried to improve the pregnancy rate in RIF. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), which is obtained from the autologous blood samples of a person and is multiple times richer in platelets and other growth factors helps improve endometrial receptivity.

Objective

This study has been conducted to summarise the evidence and quality of evidence available so far regarding the role of PRP in cases of unexplained RIF.

Materials and Methods

An electronic database search for randomised clinical trials comparing PRP against routine care in women with unexplained RIF was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane Central. Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search and retrieved data using the predefined eligibility criteria. Bias assessment was done using the Cochrane Collaboration Network Risk of Bias Tool version 2. The quality of evidence was determined and a summary of the findings table was prepared for individual outcomes using GRADEpro software.

Results

We identified 1146 records, and after removing duplicates, 531 records were screened. Out of these, 22 studies reached full-text screening and nine studies were included in the final review. We are uncertain about the effect of PRP due to the very low quality of evidence and we have little confidence that the administration of PRP had any significant effect on improving the live birth rate in women with RIF (odds ratio [OR]: 7.32, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.54-11.81, I2 = 40%). Similarly, the quality of evidence was low for the clinical pregnancy rate, so we are uncertain if the administration of PRP had any significant effect on the clinical pregnancy rate (OR: 3.20, 95% CI: 2.38-4.28, I2 = 0%).

Interpretation

The current review suggests that there may be some beneficial effects of PRP in women with RIF, but the quality of evidence is very low and we are uncertain of the benefit and have little confidence in these findings.

Limitations

Limitations are the small sample size of most studies, a short follow-up period, non-uniformity in the definition of outcomes and very low quality of evidence.

Registration

The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021292209).

The efficacy of intrauterine infusion of platelet rich plasma in women undergoing assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous platelet concentration recently used in the reproductive field. Studies had conflicting results regarding its effect on pregnancy outcomes. We aimed to solve the debate on the safety and efficacy of PRP in women undergoing assisted reproduction and assess the influence of covariates on the outcomes of PRP infusion.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science in May 2023. We included randomized and non-randomized clinical trials as well as cohort studies assessing intrauterine PRP in sub fertile women undergoing assisted reproduction (IVF/ICSI). For the quality assessment, We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1, the ROBINS-I tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We pooled the data using RevMan version 5.4.

RESULTS

The data from 23 studies were pooled. PRP had favorable outcomes compared with the control group on clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.84, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.09; P < 0.00001), live birth rate (RR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.47; P = 0.001), and miscarriages (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.72; P = 0.0002). Women with repeated implantation failure had a significantly improved clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.49 to 2.24; P < 0.00001), live birth rate (RR:1.83, 95% CI: 1.33 to 2.51; P = 0.002), and miscarriage rate (RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31 to 068; P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

PRP showed promising results in assisted reproductive techniques. Further large and multicenter RCTs are required to compare the doses of PRP while identifying the specific population with the most benefits from PRP.

Future risk of metabolic syndrome after recurrent pregnancy loss: a cohort study using UK Biobank

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of metabolic syndrome (MS) after recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) using UK Biobank data. A history of pregnancy loss is associated with the development of cardiovascular diseases in the future. However, the association between RPL and subsequent MS is poorly understood. Therefore, we aimed to check the risk of MS after RPL.

DESIGN

The study population was divided into 2 groups according to reproductive history: women with a history of RPL and women without a history of RPL. Recurrent pregnancy loss was defined as 2 or more spontaneous miscarriages, and MS was defined as at least 3 of the following: abdominal obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, high-blood pressure, and hyperglycemia.

SETTING

UK Biobank resource.

PATIENTS

The UK Biobank is a prospective cohort study that enrolled individuals aged between 40 and 69 years whose medical and reproductive histories were retrieved at enrollment. In this cohort, only women with a history of at least one pregnancy were selected.

INTERVENTIONS

Recurrent pregnancy loss.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the prevalence of MS. The secondary outcomes were 5 diagnostic components of MS.

RESULTS

We analyzed 228,674 women, including 15,702 with a history of RPL and 212,972 without a history of RPL. Women with a history of RPL have a higher prevalence of MS between the ages of 40 and 60 years (33.0% vs. 31.5%). After adjusting for covariates (age, race, number of live births, early menopause, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity), the increased risk of MS after RPL remained significant (adjusted odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.15). Furthermore, in the analysis of the 5 diagnostic components of MS, a history of RPL significantly increased the risk of abdominal obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and hyperglycemia.

CONCLUSION

Middle-aged women with a history of RPL have an increased risk of MS.

ESHRE Add-ons working group, Lundin K, Bentzen JG, Bozdag G, Ebner T, Harper J, Le Clef N, Moffett A, Norcross S, Polyzos NP, Rautakallio-Hokkanen S, Sfontouris I, Sermon K, Vermeulen N, Pinborg A. 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.

The value of platelet-rich plasma in women with previous implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value of intrauterine PRP to improve IVF outcome in women with previous implantation failure.

METHODS

Screening of Pubmed, Web of Science, and other databases from inception to August 2022 using the keywords related to "platelet-rich plasma" OR "PRP" AND "IVF" "implantation failure." Twenty-nine studies (3308 participants) were included in our analysis, 13 were RCTs, 6 were prospective cohorts, 4 were prospective single arm, and 6 were retrospective analyses. Extracted data included settings of the study, study type, sample size, participants' characteristics, route, volume, timing of PRP administration, and outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Implantation rate was reported in 6 RCTs (886 participants) and 4 non-RCTs (732 participants). The odds ratio (OR) effect estimate was 2.62 and 2.06, with 95% CI of 1.83, 3.76, and 1.03-4.11, respectively. Endometrial thickness was compared in 4 RCTs (307 participants) and 9 non-RCTs (675 participants), which showed a mean difference of 0.93 and 1.16, with 0.59-1.27 and 0.68-1.65 95% CI, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PRP administration improves implantation, clinical pregnancy, chemical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth rates, and endometrial thickness in women with previous implantation failure.

Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Women with a History of Embryo Transfer Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is used to enhance pregnancy in infertile women. In this technique, the eggs are removed from the ovary and fertilized and injected with sperm to make embryos. Unfortunately, embryo implantation failures still occur in many of these women. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapies use a patient's own platelets to promote tissue healing and growth, including endometrium. The growth factors provided by the platelets play a criterial role on the regenerative ability of PRP. In the last years, PRP treatments have been gaining a lot of popularity to treat women with repeated ART failures. In this study, we collected and summarized all information published in the scientific literature to assess the evidence of the PRP effect on pregnancy. We only considered randomized controlled trials (RCT), a type of study designed to be unbiased and considered at the highest level of evidence. Our analysis indicates that PRP therapies might be an effective treatment in cases of poor responsiveness to conventional ART. However, additional studies (well-designed) are necessary to confirm this beneficial effect of PRP.

Effects of Intrauterine Infusion of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma in Women Undergoing Treatment with Assisted Reproductive Technology: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose This meta-analysis was conducted to systematically retrieve relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluate the effects of intrauterine infusion of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in women with thin endometrium, implantation or pregnancy failure undergoing treatment with assisted reproductive technology (ART).

Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the retrieved RCTs. Studies on the intrauterine infusion of PRP in women undergoing treatment with ART that were published in PubMed, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Embase from inception until June 2022 were included. The data were extracted and analyzed independently using the fixed-effects or random-effects model according to heterogeneity.

Results Seven RCTs involving 861 patients (435 in the intervention group and 426 in the control group) were included. The rates of clinical pregnancy (risk ratio [RR]: 2.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0–3.13; P < 0.00001), chemical pregnancy (RR: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.58–2.45; P < 0.00001), live births (RR: 7.03; 95% CI: 3.91–12.6; P < 0.00001), and implantation (RR: 3.27; 95% CI: 1.42–7.52; P = 0.005) were significantly higher in the women who received PRP infusion than in the control group. No significant differences were noted in the miscarriage rate (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.39–2.42; P = 0.96) between the two groups.

Conclusion In summary, intrauterine infusion of PRP may be an effective therapy for women with thin endometrium and recurrent implantation failure (RIF) undergoing treatment with ART. More population-based RCTs are warranted to verify the efficacy of our evidence.