Successful glucocorticoid treatment for patients with abnormal autoimmunity on in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer

The use of immunomodulation therapy in women with recurrent implantation failure undergoing assisted conception: A multicentre cohort study

PROBLEM

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) after multiple embryo transfers remains a vexing problem and immunomodulators have been used with conflicting results. This study aims to assess the effect of immunomodulation therapy on live birth rate (LBR) in women with RIF undergoing assisted reproduction treatment (ART).

METHOD OF STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study in multicentre network of private assisted conception units in the UK. The study included women who had at least two failed attempts of embryo transfers at CARE fertility network in the period from 1997 to 2018. Women in the treatment group had immunomodulator drugs in the form of corticosteroids, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), and intravenous intralipid (IVIL) infusions, either separately or in combination, after immunological testing, in addition to standard ART whilst women in the control group had only ART without immunomodulators. The primary outcome was LBR per cycle. Secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical pregnancy (CPR), cumulative live birth (CLBR), and miscarriage.

RESULTS

A total of 27 163 ART cycles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 5083 had immunomodulation treatment in addition to standard ART treatment, and 22 080 had standard ART treatment alone. Women in the treatment group were significantly older (mean age 38.5 vs. 37.1 years, p < .001), and had a higher number of previous failed ART cycles (mean 4.3 vs. 3.8, p < .01). There was a higher LBR in women who received immunomodulation therapy when compared with the control group (20.9% vs. 15.8%, odds ratio [OR] 1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-1.53, p < .001). Multivariate regression analysis showed that immunomodulation treatment was a significant independent predictor of live birth after adjusting for other confounders (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.33, 95% CI 1.15-1.54, p < .001). Survival analysis showed a higher CLBR in the treatment group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.78, 95% CI 1.62-1.94, p < .001).

CONCLUSION(S)

This study provides evidence of a potential beneficial effect of immunomodulation therapy in women with RIF after immunological testing. There remains a need for high quality, adequately powered multicentre RCTs to robustly address the role of immunomodulation in women with RIF. There is also an urgent need for standardised screening tests for immune disorders that could preclude implantation.

Glucocorticoid supplementation during ovulation induction for assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing interest in glucocorticoid treatment during oocyte stimulation to treat infertility in women who have undergone Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART).

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of adjuvant glucocorticoid therapy on pregnancy outcomes in infertile women undergoing ART cycles.

STUDY DESIGN

A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2022. To assess the efficacy and safety of additional glucocorticoid treatment during ovulation induction in women who underwent IVF or ICSI treatment, only randomized controlled trials were included.

RESULTS

Overall, glucocorticoid therapy during ovulation showed a nonsignificant effect of prednisolone improving the live birth rate (OR = 1.03, 95% CI [.75, 1.43], I² = .0%, p = .84), abortion rate (OR = 1.14, 95% CI [.62, 2.08], I² = 31%, p = .68), and implantation rate (OR = 1.1, 95% CI [.82, 1.5], I² = 8%, p = .52) of infertile women compared to the control group. The present meta-analysis revealed that the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle tended to increase after glucocorticoid treatment (OR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.02, 1.63], I² = 8%, p = .52).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis suggested that ovarian stimulation prednisolone therapy does not significantly improve clinical outcomes in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Although the results indicated that adjuvant glucocorticoid therapy during ovarian stimulation may increase the clinical pregnancy rate, subgroup analysis showed that it was affected by infertility factors, dose schedules, and length of treatment. Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution.

Is glucocorticoid use associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer? A meta-analysis

Background

It has been reported that the use of glucocorticoids may be able to improve clinical pregnancy rates in patients receiving in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between glucocorticoid use and clinical pregnancy rate in IVF-ET patients.

Methods

This study has been registered on the International Register of Prospective Systems Evaluation (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42022375427). A thorough and detailed search of databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted to identify eligible studies up to October 2022. Quality assessment was conducted on the modified Jadad Scoring Scale and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the inter-study heterogeneity was estimated by Q test and I² test. Combined hazard ratios with 95% CI were calculated using random effects or fixed effects models based on heterogeneity. Meanwhile, Begg's and Egger's tests were used to detect the existence of publication bias, the leave-one-out method was used for sensitivity analysis and multiple subgroup analyses were conducted.

Results

Seventeen studies involving 3056 IVF-ET cycles were included. We found that glucocorticoid use was associated with a higher IVF-ET pregnancy rate (OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.27-2.74, P = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis, studies of different regions and different study types all showed similar results that glucocorticoid is beneficial to improve the clinical pregnancy rate of patients with IVF-ET, and patients with positive autoantibodies and patients receiving IVF-ET multiple times also showed the same results. However, there was no significant change in clinical pregnancy rates in the seven studies with negative autoantibodies and in the seven studies with initial IVF-ET treatment. The results of the 12 medium-acting glucocorticoids and 4 long-acting glucocorticoids were also generally consistent with each other. There was no statistical difference in subgroup analysis of whether patients had endometriosis or not.

Conclusion

Appropriate use of glucocorticoids is beneficial for improving the clinical pregnancy rate in women receiving IVF-ET, but this result still needs to be verified by more high-quality and large sample size randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Antinuclear antibodies positivity in women in reproductive age: From infertility to adverse obstetrical outcomes - A meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis were designed to identify possible correlations between isolated serum antinuclear antibody (ANA) and (i) infertility in the context of in-vitro fertilization (IVF), (ii) idiopathic recurrent pregnancy losses (RPL), and (iii) second/ third trimester pregnancy complications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature in PubMed Library database from inception to March 2022 following PRISMA guidelines. Our pooled results showed a lower pregnancy rate among ANA-positive women undergoing IVF/ICSI compared to ANA-negative women undergoing the same procedures (279/908 versus 1136/2347, random effect, odds ratio -OR- 0.50, 95% confidence interval -CI- 0.38-0.67, p 0.00001, I² = 58%). We also reported a higher miscarriage rate among ANA-positive compared to ANA-negative women (48/223 versus 109/999, random effect, OR: 3.25 95% CI: 1.57-6.76, p = 0.002, I² = 61%) and a lower implantation rate (320/1489 versus 1437/4205, random effect, OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.36-0.72, p = 0.0001, I² = 78%). Regarding RPL, pooled results demonstrated a higher prevalence of ANA-positivity in RPL women compared to controls (698/2947 versus 240/3145, random effect, OR: 3.22, 95% CI: 2.12-4.88, p 0.00001, I² 77%), either using > 2 or > 3 pregnancy losses threshold for defining RPL. Heterogeneity of reporting outcome did not allow a quantitative analysis and led to no clear demonstration of an effect of serum ANA on the incidence of stillbirth, preeclampsia and hypertensive disorders. In conclusion, the unfavorable effect of serum ANA was observed in women following IVF. Similarly, ANA were associated with the risk of RPL, while data were unconclusive in terms of late pregnancy complications.

Immunomodulation for unexplained recurrent implantation failure: where are we now?

In brief

Immune dysfunction may contribute to or cause recurrent implantation failure. This article summarizes normal and pathologic immune responses at implantation and critically appraises currently used immunomodulatory therapies.

Abstract

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) may be defined as the absence of pregnancy despite the transfer of ≥3 good-quality blastocysts and is unexplained in up to 50% of cases. There are currently no effective treatments for patients with unexplained RIF. Since the maternal immune system is intricately involved in mediating endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation, both insufficient and excessive endometrial inflammatory responses during the window of implantation are proposed to lead to implantation failure. Recent strategies to improve conception rates in RIF patients have focused on modulating maternal immune responses at implantation, through either promoting or suppressing inflammation. Unfortunately, there are no validated, readily available diagnostic tests to confirm immune-mediated RIF. As such, immune therapies are often started empirically without robust evidence as to their efficacy. Like other chronic diseases, patient selection for immunomodulatory therapy is crucial, and personalized medicine for RIF patients is emerging. As the literature on the subject is heterogenous and rapidly evolving, we aim to summarize the potential efficacy, mechanisms of actions and side effects of select therapies for the practicing clinician.

Intravenous immunoglobulin and prednisolone to women with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss after assisted reproductive technology treatment: a protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), defined as two or more consecutive pregnancy losses in the first trimester, affects around 5% of fertile women. The underlying causes remain unknown in up to 60% of patients; however, most studies point at an immunological pathology in unexplained RPL, and therefore, an effective treatment may be immunomodulatory. This study aims to evaluate the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and prednisolone on reproductive outcome and the immune system in women with unexplained RPL undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This randomised, placebo-controlled trial with double-blinded randomisation to two parallel arms evaluate if immunomodulatory (active) treatment is superior to placebo in increasing the chance of ongoing pregnancy assessed at nuchal translucency scan in gestational weeks (GW) 11-13 after embryo transfer (ET) in 74 RPL patients with ≥2 pregnancy losses as its primary objective. The active treatment consists of IVIg (one infusion preferably 1-5 days before ET and in GW 5, 6 and 7) and prednisolone (5 mg/day from first day of menstrual bleeding until ET and 10 mg/day from ET to GW 8+0) while the comparator consists of intravenous human albumin (5%) and placebo tablets. Allocation is concealed for participants, caregivers, and investigators until trial termination and is performed in a 1:1 ratio. The secondary objective is to evaluate treatment safety, and the tertiary objective is exploration of the association between treatment, reproductive outcome after ET, and the lymphocyte subset distribution in peripheral blood collected before and after intravenous infusion(s). Excess biological material is stored in a biobank for future research.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The North Denmark Region Committee on Health Research Ethics (N-20200066) approved this trial. The results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented to relevant patient associations, at relevant academic conferences and to key stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04701034.

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.

Glucocorticoids Improve the Pregnancy Rate and Outcome in Women With Unexplained Positive Autoantibodies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The effect of glucocorticoid therapy on women with unexplained positive autoantibodies is under debate. This systemic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate whether glucocorticoid administration can improve the pregnancy outcome of this population. Relevant publications were searched from databases, and a total of seven prospective and retrospective cohort studies that investigated the effects of glucocorticoid administration on women with unexplained positive autoantibodies, were included. The outcomes of our systematic review and meta-analysis were measured in terms of risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed or random effect models. We found that glucocorticoid treatment improved the clinical pregnancy rate (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.64–2.92) and live birth rate (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.17–3.16), especially when glucocorticoid administration was started before pregnancy (clinical pregnancy rate: RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.58–3.34; live birth rate: RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.58–3.34). However, no effect of glucocorticoids on the miscarriage rate was found (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55–1.02) regardless of the time of drug administration. Our systematic review and meta-analysis support the rational use of glucocorticoids in women with unexplained positive autoantibodies.

Association of antinuclear antibody with clinical outcome of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment: A meta-analysis

PROBLEM

Several recent studies have investigated the relationship between antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) and in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) outcomes. This meta-analysis evaluated the effect of ANA on clinical outcome for patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment.

METHOD OF STUDY

A systemic survey of the literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases, through January 2019. Evaluated outcomes included clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), miscarriage rate (MR) and implantation rate (IR). Relative risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used for dichotomous data. Meta-analyses were performed with Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Eleven eligible studies were found. For IVF/ICSI cycles, compared with an ANA(-) group, infertile patients with ANA(+) had significantly reduced incidence of CPR (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56-0.79; I²  = 60%) and IR (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.76; I²  = 75%), and had a higher MR (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.40-2.36; I²  = 48%).

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that ANA might cause poor pregnancy outcomes for infertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment.

The role of immunotherapy in in vitro fertilization: a guideline

Adjuvant immunotherapy treatments in in vitro fertilization (IVF) aim to improve the outcome of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in both the general ART population as well as subgroups such as patients with recurrent miscarriage or implantation failure. The purpose of this guideline is to evaluate the role of immunomodulating therapy in ART. Unfortunately, many of the evaluated therapies lack robust evidence from well-designed adequately powered randomized controlled trials to support their use. Immunotherapies reviewed in the present document are either not associated with improved live-birth outcome in IVF or have been insufficiently studied to make definitive recommendations.

A retrospective comparative study of prednisolone use in antagonist co-treated assisted reproductive technology cycles for patients with good prognosis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of peri-implantation prednisolone use and its duration in antagonist co-treated assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles of patients with good prognosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Infertile patients treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol between January 2010 and June 2013 were included. The patients in group A (n=196) received no prednisolone. The patients in groups B (n=397) and C (n=371) received 5 mg oral prednisolone daily, for 4 and 12 days following embryo transfer, respectively. The main outcome parameter was live birth rate.

RESULTS

The ages of the groups were 30.1±4.6, 31.5±4.5, and 30.9±4.7 years, respectively (p=0.163). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding cycle characteristics. Implantation rates were 20.7%, 24.6%, and 23.8%, respectively (p=0.163). Miscarriage rates were 1.5%, 3.5%, and 3.2%, respectively (p=0.859). Live birth rates were 28.7%, 29.3%, and 32.8%, respectively (p=0.482).

CONCLUSION

Empiric prednisolone administration during the peri-implantation period does not seem to have beneficial effects in ART cycles of patients with good prognosis.

[Use of hydroxychloroquine and prednisone in the presence of serum autoimmunity in female infertility]

OBJECTIVE

Presence of non-specific autoimmunity (antinuclear antibodies without antigenic specificities and/or antiphospholipid antibodies without criteria of antiphospholipid syndrome) seems to be associated with unexplained female infertility. The objective is to study the characteristics of patients who undergone treatment for non-specific antibodies in Medically Assisted Procreation (MAP).

METHODS

Ten patients were prospectively followed at MAP center of Grenoble University Hospital. Patient characteristics were collected and evaluated. All patients had a consultation in internal medicine unit as well as an autoimmune assessment (antinuclear antibodies, APL especially) in search of defined autoimmune disease (exclusion criterion). The treatments undertaken were at clinician' discretion.

RESULTS

One patient received quadritherapy (heparin, platelet antiaggregant, prednisone and hydroxychloroquine), 5 received triple therapy, 3 had dual therapy, and one patient had prednisone only. The 10 patients had a pregnancy under treatment, 8 of which were completed without complications. The control of autoimmunity under treatment appears to show a decrease in serum antibody levels. Tolerance was good (delayed hypersensitivity to hydrochloroquine resulted in discontinuation of therapy in only one patient).

CONCLUSION

The presence of non-specific serum autoimmunity in a context of infertility appears to be pathogenic and immunomodulatory treatments are clinically and/or biologically effective. A prospective and interventional study with a larger number of patients is needed to assess the efficacy of such treatments in patients with unexplained infertility.

Combined treatment of prednisone and aspirin, starting before ovulation induction, may improve reproductive outcomes in ANA-positive patients

LABELED PROBLEM

Antinuclear antibody (ANA) could cause reproductive failure. But treatment for women with antinuclear antibody was controversial.

METHODS

One hundred and thirty-three ANA+ women with one-time in vitro fertilization (IVF) implantation failure were divided into two groups randomly. The study group comprised 60 sero-positive for antinuclear antibody. These patients were treated with prednisone (10 mg/day) and aspirin (100 mg/day) starting 3 months before induction of ovulation in 60 IVF cycles. Seventy-three patients were included in untreated group.

RESULTS

Fertilization rate, pregnancy rate, and implantation rate were significantly higher in treatment group, while abortion rate was markedly higher in non-treatment group by randomized controlled trial. Same conclusions were also proved between cycles of 60 ANA+ women with therapy and their former cycles without any treatment.

CONCLUSION

Combined treatment of prednisone for immunosuppression and aspirin as an antithrombotic agent, starting 3 months before ovulation induction, may improve reproductive outcomes in ANA+ patients.

A retrospective study on IVF/ICSI outcome in patients with anti-nuclear antibodies: the effects of prednisone plus low-dose aspirin adjuvant treatment

BACKGROUND

Anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) are suspected of having relevance to adverse reproductive events.

METHODS

This study aims to investigate the potential effect of ANA on IVF/ICSI outcome and the therapeutic role of prednisone plus low-dose aspirin (P + A) adjuvant treatment in ANA + patients. The first IVF/ICSI cycles without P + A of sixty-six ANA + women were enrolled as the ANA + group, and the 233 first IVF/ICSI cycles of matched ANA- women served as the ANA- group. The ANA + group was divided into the Titre < =1:320 subgroup and the Titre > 1:320 subgroup. Twenty-one ANA + women with adverse outcomes in their first cycles (ANA + cycles without P + A) received P + A adjuvant treatment for three months before the second IVF/ICSI cycle (ANA + cycles with P + A). The clinical characteristics and the IVF/ICSI outcomes were compared, respectively, between 1) the ANA + group and the ANA- group, 2) the Titre < =1:320 subgroup and the Titre > 1:320 subgroup, and 3) the ANA + cycles without P + A and the ANA + cycles with P + A.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between each of the two-group pairs in the clinical characteristics. The ANA + group exhibited significantly lower MII oocytes rate, normal fertilisation, pregnancy and implantation rates, as well as remarkably higher abnormal fertilisation and early miscarriage rates. The Titre < =1:320 subgroup's IVF/ICSI outcomes were as poor as those of the Titre > 1:320 subgroup. After the P + A adjuvant treatment, the number of two pro-nuclei, perfect embryos and available embryos, and the implantation rate increased significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

These observations suggest that ANA could exert a detrimental effect on IVF/ICSI outcome that might not be titre-dependent, and P + A adjuvant treatment could be useful for ANA + patients. This hypothesis should be verified in further prospective randomised studies.

Prednisolone for repeated implantation failure associated with high natural killer cell levels

Women with unexplained repeated IVF failure present a considerable challenge. Some cases are believed to be due to immunological dysfunction preventing effective embryo implantation. As data are still being collected, doctors are faced with the dilemma of treating patients (or not) in the absence of randomised control trial evidence. This review explores a pragmatic approach in using natural killer cell analysis as a means of targeting suitable patients who might attempt treatment with additional immunosuppressive therapy.

Peri-implantation glucocorticoid administration for assisted reproductive technology cycles

BACKGROUND

In order to improve embryo implantation for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles the use of glucocorticoids has been advocated. 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 normalise the cytokine expression profile in the endometrium and by suppression of endometrial inflammation.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether the administration of glucocorticoids around the time of implantation improved clinical outcomes in subfertile women undergoing IVF or ICSI when compared to no glucocorticoid administration.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (September 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (September 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2011), EMBASE (1976 to September 2011), CINAHL (1982 to September 2011) and Science Direct (1966 to September 2011) were searched. Reference lists of relevant articles and relevant conference proceedings were handsearched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the research question were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials and extracted relevant data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies (involving 1879 couples) were included. Three studies reported live birth rate and these did not identify a significant difference after pooling the (preliminary) results (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.19). With regard to pregnancy rates, there was also no evidence that glucocorticoids improved clinical outcome (13 RCTs; OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.44). However, a subgroup analysis of 650 women undergoing IVF (6 RCTs) revealed a significantly higher pregnancy rate for women using glucocorticoids (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.13). There were no significant differences in adverse events, but these were poorly and inconsistently reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there was no clear evidence that administration of peri-implantation glucocorticoids in ART cycles significantly improved the clinical outcome. The use of glucocorticoids in a subgroup of women undergoing IVF (rather than ICSI) was associated with an improvement in pregnancy rates of borderline statistical significance and should be interpreted with care. These findings were limited to the routine use of glucocorticoids and cannot be extrapolated to women with autoantibodies, unexplained infertility or recurrent implantation failure. Further well designed randomised studies are required to elucidate the possible role of this therapy in well defined patient groups.

Prednisolone suppresses NK cell cytotoxicity in vitro in women with a history of infertility and elevated NK cell cytotoxicity

PROBLEM

To evaluate the effect of prednisolone on NK cell cytotoxicity in vitro environment and also to compare the effect of prednisolone versus immunoglobulin-G (IVIG) on NK cell cytotoxicity using in vitro co-culture with K562 cells.

METHOD OF STUDY

The following is a prospective observational study, between August 2006 and February 2007, was carried out on blood samples from 110 patients with a history of recurrent miscarriage or recurrent failed implantation. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells containing NK cells were isolated and co-cultured with target cell K562 in three different effector-to-target (E:T) ratios of 50:1, 25:1 and 12.5:1. Prednisolone or IVIG was then added to the tube with E:T ratio of 50:1 to assess suppressive effect. The percentage killing was recorded and statistical analysis performed using Student's t-test.

RESULTS

In the experiments with an E:T ratio of 50:1 without prednisolone or IVIG in the co-culture, the mean target cell killing percentage was 26.4%. In cultures using the same E:T ratio, this killing percentage was significantly reduced in the presence of IVIG (9.9%) or prednisolone (13.6%), (P<0.001 in both analyses). On comparing the reduction in killing percentage of target cells by prednisolone versus IVIG, a slightly lower reduction in the prednisolone co-culture was noted but this was not statistically significant (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that prednisolone is able to suppress the cytolytic activity of the NK cell. Prednisolone and IVIG are almost equally effective in suppressing in vitro NK cell cytolytic activity.

Peri-implantation glucocorticoid administration for assisted reproductive technology cycles

BACKGROUND

In order to improve embryo implantation in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles, the use of glucocorticoids has been advocated. It has been proposed that glucocorticoids may improve the intra-uterine environment by acting as immuno modulators to reduce the uterine NK cell count, normalise the cytokine expression profile in the endometrium and by suppression of endometrial inflammation.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether the administration of glucocorticoids around the time of implantation improves clinical outcomes in subfertile women undergoing IVF or ICSI, compared to no glucocorticoid administration.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's trials register (February 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2006), EMBASE (1976 to June 2006), CINAHL (1982 to June 2006) and Science Direct (1966 to June 2006) were searched. Reference lists of relevant articles and relevant conference proceedings were also hand searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the research question were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials and extracted relevant data.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies (1759 couples) were included. Three studies reported live birth rate and these did not identify a significant difference after pooling the (preliminary) results (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.19). With regard to pregnancy rates, there was also no evidence that glucocorticoids improved clinical outcome (13 RCTs; OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.44). However, a subgroup analysis of 650 women undergoing IVF (6 RCTs) revealed a significantly higher pregnancy rate for women using glucocorticoids (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.13). There were no significant differences in adverse events, but these were poorly and inconsistently reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is no clear evidence that administration of peri-implantation glucocorticoids in ART cycles significantly improves clinical outcome. The use of glucocorticoids in women undergoing IVF (rather than ICSI) was associated with an improvement in pregnancy rates of borderline statistical significance. These findings are limited to the routine use of glucocorticoids and cannot be extrapolated to women with auto-antibodies, unexplained infertility or recurrent implantation failure. Further well designed randomised studies are required to elucidate the possible role of this therapy in well defined patient groups.

Evidence-based investigations and treatments of recurrent pregnancy loss

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The majority of investigations and treatments offered to women with recurrent pregnancy loss are not evidence-based. In this review a critical analysis is given of the current management of recurrent pregnancy loss often recommended in meta-analyses and guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

Our knowledge of genetic, endocrine, thrombophilic and immunological causes of recurrent pregnancy loss has been improved significantly, primarily by the introduction of modern laboratory techniques. Most clinical trials in this area, however, are still subject to serious methodological flaws.

SUMMARY

At present, the clinician must base their clinical practice on the few high-quality observational studies and intervention trials available rather than on meta-analyses, as there is a scarcity of good clinical trials. More high-quality clinical studies are urgently needed in this area.

Corticosteroids in patients with antiovarian antibodies undergoing in vitro fertilization: a prospective pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Antiovarian autoantibodies (AOA) have been associated with reproductive failure, especially in in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients. Thus, the success rate of IVF might be improved by the use of corticosteroids. However, therapeutic trials with these drugs have yielded conflicting results, particularly because of heterogeneous inclusion criteria. Among women with previous IVF failure, we selected those who presented with a positive serum AOA assay, and analysed the efficacy of corticosteroids in improving the IVF outcome in these patients.

METHODS

One hundred patients with serum AOA detected by ELISA and at least two previously failed IVF attempts were selected. These patients underwent a further IVF cycle with 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, started on the first day of the treatment cycle. In patients who became pregnant, corticosteroids were administered until the end of the first trimester of pregnancy and then progressively discontinued. AOA were assessed before and after oocyte retrieval. Clinical data of the corticosteroid-treated cycle were compared with data from the preceding IVF cycle for each patient.

RESULTS

No adverse effects resulting from corticosteroids were observed. Post oocyte retrieval antiovarian IgG were significantly lower in corticosteroid-treated attempts when compared with the preceding cycles. Twenty-six pregnancies resulted in the birth of 30 healthy children. The pregnancy rate, implantation rate, and live birth rate were 38.8%, 17.8%, and 26.5% respectively in prednisolone-treated cycles.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the usefulness of corticosteroids in improving the success rate in a subset of patients with previous IVF failure and significant serum AOA levels.

Future directions of failed implantation and recurrent miscarriage research

Recurrent implantation failure is today the major reason for women completing several IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection attempts without having achieved a child, and is probably also the explanation for many cases of unexplained infertility. Most causes of recurrent miscarriage are still poorly elucidated, but from a theoretical point of view recurrent implantation failure and recurrent miscarriage are suggested to have partly overlapping causes. Recent research has indeed documented that both syndromes can be caused by the same embryonic chromosomal abnormalities and the same maternal endocrine, thrombophilic and immunological disturbances. Consequently, many treatments attempting to normalize these abnormalities have been tested or are currently used in women with both recurrent implantation failure and recurrent miscarriage. However, no treatment for the two syndromes is at the moment sufficiently documented to justify its routine use. In this review, an overview is given regarding present knowledge about causes that may be common for recurrent implantation failure and recurrent miscarriage, and suggestions are put forward for future research that may significantly improve understanding and treatment options for the syndromes.

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.

Gonadal antibodies interfering with female reproduction

While the involvement of anti-ovarian antibodies (AOAs) is highly likely, yet still controversial, in patients with patent premature ovarian failure (POF), it is even more difficult--for several reasons--to ascertain the clinical significance of these antibodies in patients without obvious ovarian failure. First, AOAs form a heterogeneous group of antibodies recognizing several different antigenic targets such as granulosa and thecal cells, zona pellucida, oocyte cytoplasm, corpus luteum, as well as gonadotrophins and their receptors. Second, the detection of AOAs in various clinical situations does not readily imply a causal relationship between these antibodies and impaired ovarian function. Third, diagnostic tools for detecting AOAs and their molecular targets have to be improved to yield more reliable data and allow a better comprehension of the pathophysiology of AOAs. Preliminary results with immunosuppressive therapy in selected AOA patients have been encouraging, but randomized trials have to be performed.

Antinuclear Antibody Reduces the Pregnancy Rate in the First IVF-ET Treatment Cycle but Not the Cumulative Pregnancy Rate without Specific Medication

PROBLEM

It has been shown that the presence of antinuclear antibody (ANA) might reduce pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET). However, the mechanism of implantation failure by ANA has not yet been clarified. This study was performed to investigate the impact of ANA on pregnancy rates after IVF-ET, and the necessity of specific medication for infertile women who have ANA in their sera.

METHOD OF STUDY

A total of 108 infertile women were treated by IVF-ET or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)-ET. ANA was examined by an indirect fluorescent antibody procedure. Data from women under 40 years old were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The implantation rates per embryo transferred in the first treatment cycles were 14.8% (eight of 54) and 32.4% (33 of 102), in women with and without ANA, respectively. There was a significant difference in the implantation rates between the two groups (P < 0.05). The pregnancy rates per ET in the first treatment cycles were 28% (seven of 25) and 54.2% (26 of 48), respectively. There was also a significant difference in the pregnancy rates between the two groups (P < 0.05). Afterwards, treatments with IVF-ET or ICSI-ET were repeatedly performed for unsuccessful patients, without any specific medication for ANA. The average ET cycles were 1.80 +/- 1.13 and 1.27 +/- 0.54, in women with and without ANA, respectively. The cumulative pregnancy rates per patient were 68% (17 of 25) and 55.6% (35 of 63), respectively. There was no significant difference in the overall pregnancy rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that ANA might have an impact on implantation failure in women treated by IVF-ET or ICSI-ET. ANA reduced the pregnancy rates in the first IVF-ET or ICSI-ET cycles but not the cumulative pregnancy rates without medication. This indicates that the mechanisms of implantation failure by ANA could be solved, and effective and safe medication should be developed for better implantation rates, especially in the first treatment cycle.