Injectable "Homing-Like" Bioactive Short-Fibers for Endometrial Repair and Efficient Live Births

The prevalence of infertility caused by endometrial defects is steadily increasing, posing a significant challenge to women's reproductive health. In this study, injectable "homing-like" bioactive decellularized extracellular matrix short-fibers (DEFs) of porcine skin origin are innovatively designed for endometrial and fertility restoration. The DEFs can effectively bind to endometrial cells through noncovalent dipole interactions and release bioactive growth factors in situ. In vitro, the DEFs effectively attracted endometrial cells through the "homing-like" effect, enabling cell adhesion, spreading, and proliferation on their surface. Furthermore, the DEFs effectively facilitated the proliferation and angiogenesis of human primary endometrial stromal cells (HESCs) and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs), and inhibited fibrosis of pretreated HESCs. In vivo, the DEFs significantly accelerated endometrial restoration, angiogenesis, and receptivity. Notably, the deposition of endometrial collagen decreased from 41.19 ± 2.16% to 14.15 ± 1.70% with DEFs treatment. Most importantly, in endometrium-injured rats, the use of DEFs increased the live birth rate from 30% to an impressive 90%, and the number and development of live births close to normal rats. The injectable "homing-like" bioactive DEFs system can achieve efficient live births and intrauterine injection of DEFs provides a new promising clinical strategy for endometrial factor infertility.

Engagement in Nonbiomedical Practices for Fertility Enhancement: A Scoping Review

Objectives: This scoping review aims to (1) describe the scope and coverage of the body of literature on nonbiomedical practices used for enhancing fertility, (2) summarize and map the existing evidence on the extent and types of nonbiomedical practices used, and (3) examine how the research on this topic has been conducted with particular attention paid to how participants are asked about their use of nonbiomedical practices for fertility enhancement. Design: We conducted a scoping review by which four databases were searched (PubMed, Psychinfo, Socindex, and CINHAL). Articles were screened for inclusion by two researchers through a title and abstract screening followed by a full-text screening. Data were extracted from included articles and results summarized and compared across studies and regions. Results: A total of 32 studies were identified from 16 countries in five regions of the world. The majority of studies were clinic-based, primarily recruiting participants from fertility clinics in urban and suburban areas. More than half of the studies included only women, a few studies included only men, and the remainder of studies included both men and women. Most quantitative studies reported the prevalence of nonbiomedical practice use, which ranged from 8% to 83%; however, there was variation across studies regarding the time frame for which these percentages were derived. Few studies reported on other measures of the extent of use such as duration or frequency. A variety of nonbiomedical practices were identified with biologically based treatments, particularly herbal medicine use, being the most common followed by religious and spiritual interventions. Regional differences were identified. Variation in the wording and format of the question(s) used in survey instruments asking participants about their use of nonbiomedical practices exists and may impact participants' reporting of use. Conclusions: Infertility affects millions of individuals worldwide often with severe social, emotional, and financial consequences. To enhance fertility and, in some cases, overcome infertility, many individuals and couples are engaging in a variety of nonbiomedical practices. This scoping review describes the scope and nature of the existing literature on the use of nonbiomedical practices for fertility enhancement and highlights important gaps and limitations in the conduct of this research. A more comprehensive and inclusive investigation of nonbiomedical practices for enhancing fertility is needed to improve our understanding of how individuals and couples are managing infertility, identify educational and counseling needs, and to improve research related to effectiveness and safety of nonbiomedical practices.