Peri-implantation glucocorticoid administration for assisted reproductive technology cycles

Peri-implantation glucocorticoid administration for assisted reproductive technology cycles

BACKGROUND

The use of peri-implantation glucocorticoids has been advocated to improve embryo implantation during assistive reproductive technology (ART) cycles such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). It has been proposed that glucocorticoids may improve the intrauterine environment by acting as immunomodulators to reduce the uterine natural killer (NK) cell count and activity, normalising the cytokine expression profile in the endometrium and by suppression of endometrial inflammation.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of glucocorticoids versus no glucocorticoids administered around the time of anticipated implantation in women undergoing IVF or ICSI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group specialised register, CENTRAL (now also containing output from two trial registers and CINAHL), MEDLINE and Embase, on 20 December 2021, together with reference checking, contact with experts in the field and relevant conference proceedings to identify additional studies. This review is an update of the review first published in  2007 and last updated in 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of supplementary systemic administration of glucocorticoids in the peri-implantation period with a placebo or no glucocorticoids in subfertile women undergoing IVF or ICSI were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth rate and multiple pregnancy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs (2232 couples analysed). We are uncertain whether glucocorticoids improved live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 2.71; 2 RCTs, n = 366; I² = 7%; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no glucocorticoids/placebo is assumed to be 9%, the chance following glucocorticoids would be between 6% and 21%. We are also uncertain whether there was a difference between peri-implantation glucocorticoids on multiple pregnancy rates per couple (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.20; 4 RCTs, n = 504; I² = 53%; very low-certainty evidence). The I² of 53% may represent moderate statistical heterogeneity and results have to be interpreted with caution. With regard to pregnancy rates, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between ongoing pregnancy rates after glucocorticoids versus no glucocorticoids/placebo (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.76; 3 RCTs, n = 476; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy rates after glucocorticoids versus no glucocorticoids/placebo (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; 13 RCTs, n = 1967; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no glucocorticoids/placebo is assumed to be 25%, the chance following glucocorticoids would be between 24% and 32%. Furthermore, we are also uncertain whether peri-implantation glucocorticoids influenced miscarriage rates per couple (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.87; 6 RCTs, n = 821; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), the incidence of ectopic pregnancies per couple (OR 2.28, 95% CI 0.33 to 15.62; 3 RCTs, n = 320; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per couple (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.90; 3 RCTs, n = 370; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) compared to no glucocorticoids/placebo. The evidence was very low to low certainty: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there was insufficient evidence that administration of peri-implantation glucocorticoids in IVF/ICSI cycles influenced clinical outcomes. These findings were limited to the routine use of glucocorticoids in subfertile women undergoing IVF or ICSI.

Glucocorticoid therapy in assisted reproduction

As glucocorticoids are well-known as important regulators of stress and the immune system, their function and clinical use have elicited substantial interest in the field of reproduction. In particular, the effect of glucocorticoid therapy on endometrial receptivity during assisted reproduction, including in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, has led to a great deal of interest and controversy. However, previous studies have not been able to provide consistent and reliable evidence due to their small, non-controlled designs and use of different criteria. Considering the potential risk of exposure to glucocorticoids for mothers and fetuses in early pregnancy, the use of glucocorticoids in IVF cycles should be carefully evaluated, including the balance between risk and benefit. To date, there is no conclusive evidence that the use of glucocorticoids improves the pregnancy rate in IVF cycles with unselected subjects, and a further investigation should be considered with a proper study design.

What can the clinician do to improve implantation?

Implantation is a complicated process that requires the orchestration of a series of events involving both the embryo and the endometrium. Even with the transfer of high quality embryos, implantation rates remain relatively low. The growing tendency towards transferring fewer embryos provides further incentives to improve implantation rates. In this article, the various clinical strategies employed to increase the chance of implantation are reviewed. Embryo transfer technique is a critical step in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Recent studies have shown significant improvements in clinical pregnancy rates resulting from careful embryo transfer technique, appropriate catheter type and placing for embryo transfer. Increasingly, adjuvant pharmaceutical therapies are also being applied with the aim of improving embryo implantation. However, the evidence for their efficacy and safety is limited. Recent evidence suggests that adoption of milder ovarian stimulation regimens may provide a more effective clinical approach to improving implantation, since beneficial effects have been shown for both endometrial receptivity and embryo quality.