Interaction of thrombophilic SNPs in patients with unexplained infertility-multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) model analysis

Evidence-based guideline: unexplained infertility†

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended management for couples presenting with unexplained infertility (UI), based on the best available evidence in the literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The evidence-based guideline on UI makes 52 recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of UI.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

UI is diagnosed in the absence of any abnormalities of the female and male reproductive systems after 'standard' investigations. However, a consensual standardization of the diagnostic work-up is still lacking. The management of UI is traditionally empirical. The efficacy, safety, costs, and risks of treatment options have not been subjected to robust evaluation.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for ESHRE guidelines. Following formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches, and assessments were undertaken. Papers written in English and published up to 24 October 2022 were evaluated.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Based on the available evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline development group (GDG). Following stakeholder review of an initial draft, the final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This guideline aims to help clinicians provide the best care for couples with UI. As UI is a diagnosis of exclusion, the guideline outlined the basic diagnostic procedures that couples should/could undergo during an infertility work-up, and explored the need for additional tests. The first-line treatment for couples with UI was deemed to be IUI in combination with ovarian stimulation. The place of additional and alternative options for treatment of UI was also evaluated. The GDG made 52 recommendations on diagnosis and treatment for couples with UI. The GDG formulated 40 evidence-based recommendations-of which 29 were formulated as strong recommendations and 11 as weak-10 good practice points and two research only recommendations. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, one by moderate-quality evidence, nine by low-quality evidence, and 31 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in UI, a list of research recommendations was provided.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Most additional diagnostic tests and interventions in couples with UI have not been subjected to robust evaluation. For a large proportion of these tests and treatments, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required, and the results of future studies may result in the current recommendations being revised.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in the care of couples with UI, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. The full guideline and a patient leaflet are available in www.eshre.eu/guideline/UI.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The guideline was developed by ESHRE, who funded the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline in collaboration with the Monash University led Australian NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CREWHIRL). The guideline group members did not receive any financial incentives; all work was provided voluntarily. D.R. reports honoraria from IBSA and Novo Nordisk. B.A. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter, Organon and Intas Pharma; is part of the advisory board for Organon Turkey and president of the Turkish Society of Reproductive Medicine. S.B. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Organon, Ferring, the Ostetric and Gynaecological Society of Singapore and the Taiwanese Society for Reproductive Medicine; editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press; is part of the METAFOR and CAPE trials data monitoring committee. E.B. reports research grants from Roche diagnostics, Gedeon Richter and IBSA; speaker's fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Gedeon Richter, IBSA; E.B. is also a part of an Advisory Board of Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Merck, Abbott and Gedeon Richter. M.M. reports consulting fees from Mojo Fertility Ltd. R.J.N. reports research grant from Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); consulting fees from Flinders Fertility Adelaide, VinMec Hospital Hanoi Vietnam; speaker's fees from Merck Australia, Cadilla Pharma India, Ferring Australia; chair clinical advisory committee Westmead Fertility and research institute MyDuc Hospital Vietnam. T.P. is a part of the Research Council of Finland and reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Novo Nordics and Sigrid Juselius foundation; consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics and organon; speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter, Roche, Exeltis, Organon, Ferring and Korento patient organization; is a part of NFOG, AE-PCOS society and several Finnish associations. S.S.R. reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Organon, Theramex; consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD and Organon; speaker's fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD/Organon, Besins, Theramex, Gedeon Richter; travel support from Gedeon Richter; S.S.R. is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board of TTRANSPORT and deputy of the ESHRE Special Interest Group on Safety and Quality in ART; stock or stock options from IVI Lisboa, Clínica de Reprodução assistida Lda; equipment/medical writing/gifts from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. S.K.S. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Pharmasure. HRV reports consulting and travel fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

An interplay of Progesterone, Leukemia Inhibitor Factor and Interleukin-6 in the window of implantation; Impact on fertility

BACKGROUND

The process of implantation is crucial for the initiation of conception and hence fertility. In addition to a number of factors, it is regulated by a cross talk of gonadotrophins [Luteinizing Hormone (LH), Follicle Stimulatory Hormone (FSH)], ovarian steroids [Estrogen (Et), Progesterone (Pt)] and cytokines [Leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) and Interleukin 6 (IL6)]. These biomarkers are chief players of implantation.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore the role of gonadotrophins (LH, FSH, LH/FSH ratio), ovarian steroids (Et, Pt) and cytokines (LIF, IL6) in the implantation process. This aim was achieved by comparing these hormones and cytokines in the fertile and infertile groups [Polycystic ovaries (PCOs), endometriosis, unexplained infertility (Uex-IF)] and finding their association in all study groups.

METHODS

A case control study conducted from October 2020-March 2023. A total of 135 infertile women (with PCOs, Uex-IF, and endometriosis) and 177 fertile women (matched for age and BMI) were selected. Levels of 'Et', 'Pt', 'LIF' and, 'IL6' were estimated using Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). LH and FSH values were obtained from hospital desk records. The Independent Student'st-test was used to compare fertile and infertile groups. One-way ANOVA test was used to compare more than two groups, and Pearson's chi-square (χ2) test was employed to compare percentages of variables. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to assess the associations and correlations. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Significantly higher levels of LIF and IL6 were observed in fertile women compared to infertile women. Pt levels were significantly greater in the fertile group than in the infertile group. The FSH/LH ratio was significantly higher in the fertile group. Among infertile women, PCOs (71%) and Uex-IF (91%) exhibited lower Pt levels than the fertile controls (p < 0.01), but these levels remained within the reference range (RR). Among the fertile group (81%), levels of LIF within the RR were significantly higher compared to those with Uex-IF (49%) and females with endometriosis (37%). Moreover, the highest number of participants (57%) with Uex-IF exhibited IL6 levels significantly below the RR in comparison to the fertile group and infertile groups (PCOS and endometriosis). However, lower levels of IL6 were observed in women with Uex-IF. In the control group, LIF exhibited a significant positive correlation with IL6 (r = 0.370), Pt (r = 0.496), Et (r = 0.403), and LH (r = 0.428). Among women with PCOs, LIF showed a significant positive correlation with IL6 (r = 0.443), Pt (r = 0.607), and LH (r = 0.472). In cases of Uex-IF, LIF demonstrated a significant positive correlation with IL6 (r = 0.727). Females with endometriosis displayed a significant positive correlation between LIF and IL6 (r = 0.535) as well as Pt (r = 0.605). In fertile women, a positive correlation was observed between LH and IL6 (r = 0.197, p = 0.009), LIF (r = 0.428, p = 0.000), Pt (r = 0.238, p = 0.001), and Et (r = 0.356, p = 0.000). Furthermore, a positive correlation was found between LH and LIF (r = 0.472, p = 0.000) in women with PCOs.

CONCLUSION

Elevated levels of Pt were found to increase the production of LIF in fertile females. However, infertile females with PCOs and Uex-IF exhibited deficient levels of Pt, supporting its role as a biomarker for successful implantation in infertile women. These females showed decreased levels of gonadotropins as well as reduced LH/FSH ratio and diminished secretion of receptivity marker LIF, in addition to reduced Pt secretion. This suggests that reduced gonadotropin levels contribute to a lower LH/FSH ratio, resulting in decreased Pt secretion and ultimately leading to low levels of LIF, thereby causing impaired implantation in women with PCOs and Uex-IF. The exploration of low levels of LIF in patients with endometriosis requires further investigation. The significantly low levels of IL6 in the Uex-IF group elucidate the role of this cytokine in association with decreased Pt and LIF synthesis within this group.

Association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (4G/5G) of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and the risk factors for placenta-related obstetric complications

BACKGROUND

Placenta-related obstetric complications (PROCs) such as miscarriage, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, and preterm birth are the major causes of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to search the relevance of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) polymorphisms and co-morbidities and the risk factors for PROCs such as miscarriage, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, and preterm birth.

METHOD

This retrospective study analyzed the PAI-1 genotype in a cohort of 268 multiparous women with poor obstetric history. Poor obstetric history was defined as the presence of at least one of the PROCs and/or poor gestational outcomes at the previous pregnancy/pregnancies.

RESULTS

5G allele frequency was higher than the 4G allele frequency in the cohort (0.767 vs. 0.233). The frequencies of having at least one risk factor are relatively similar among the different PAI-1 genotypes ( P  > 0.05). However, the presence of MTHFR polymorphisms (homozygous and compound heterozygous forms of C677T and A1298G) and hereditary thrombophilia (Factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A gene mutations, and FXIII deficiency) were found to be associated with PAI 4G/4G ( P  = 0.048) and 5G/5G ( P  = 0.022) genotypes, respectively. Significant differences were not observed in other risk factors and co-morbidities such as autoimmune disorders, chronic inflammatory diseases, history of venous thromboembolism, carbohydrate metabolism disorders, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases depending on PAI-1 genotypes ( P  > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

MTHFR polymorphisms were found to be associated with PAI 4G/4G genotype, while 5G/5G genotype was observed more frequently in hereditary thrombophilia cases.

The role of thrombophilias in reproduction: A swot analysis

Thrombophilia is a group of inherited or acquired coagulation disorders that have been associated with reproductive failure. However, there are still no clear recommendations on whether its inclusion in the initial study of the infertile couple or patients with recurrent implantation failure is necessary. In this discussion paper, based on a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis, the different aspects of the repercussions of thrombophilia screening and treatment in reproduction are evaluated. To avoid possible subjectivity in the analysis and results of this study, researchers followed Oxford criteria for the evaluation of evidence. The results from the evaluation of the reviewed bibliography seem to indicate that, pending new evidence, it would be advisable not to include thrombophilia screening in the initial baseline study of the infertile couple. There is no evidence to support a clear association between thrombophilia and implantation failure or infertility. Thrombophilia testing in this setting may increase cost, with minimal potential benefit and lead to inappropriate use of anticoagulants with possible deleterious adverse effects. Future well-designed studies are needed to assess the possible benefit of anticoagulant therapy in infertile thrombophilic patients with implantation failure.

SORL1 Polymorphisms in Mexican Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease

The present study evaluated the risk effect of 12 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in the SORL1 gene in the Mexican population using Late-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease (LOAD) and control subjects. Considering APOE as the strongest genetic risk factor for LOAD, we conducted interaction analyses between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and the APOE genotype. Methods: Patients were interviewed during their scheduled visits at neurologic and geriatric clinics from different institutions. The LOAD diagnosis included neurological, geriatric, and psychiatric examinations, as well as the medical history and neuroimaging. Polymorphisms in SORL1 were genotyped by real-time PCR in 156 subjects with LOAD and 221 controls. APOE genotype was determined in each study subject. Allelic, genotypic, and haplotypic frequencies were analyzed; an ancestry analysis was also performed. Results: The A/A genotype in rs1784933 might be associated with an increased LOAD risk. Two blocks with high degree linkage disequilibrium (LD) were identified. The first block composed by the genetic variants rs668387, rs689021 and rs641120 showed a positive interaction (mainly the rs689021) with rs1784933 polymorphism. Moreover, we found a significant association between the APOE ε4 allele carriers and the variant rs2070045 located in the second LD block. Conclusion: The rs1784933 polymorphism is associated with LOAD in Mexican patients. In addition, the presence of APOE ε4 allele and SORL1 variants could represent a genetic interaction effect that favors LOAD risk in the Mexican population. SNPs have been proposed as genetic markers associated with the development of LOAD that can support the clinical diagnosis. Future molecular studies could help understand sporadic Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) among the Mexican population, where currently there is a sub-estimate number in terms of disease frequency and incidence.

Melatonin Receptor 1B Genetic Variants on Susceptibility to Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Hospital-Based Case-Control Study in Wuhan, Central China

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to find out the associations of Melatonin receptor 1B (MTNR1B) genetic variants with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in Wuhan of central China.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A hospital-based case-control study that included 1679 women was carried out to explore the associations of MTNR1B single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with GDM risk, which were analyzed through logistic regression analysis by adjusting age, pre-pregnancy BMI and family history of diabetes. Multifactor dimensionality reduction was applied to determine gene-gene interactions between SNPs.

RESULTS

MTNR1B SNPs rs10830962, rs10830963, rs1387153, rs7936247 and rs4753426 were significantly associated with GDM risk (P<0.05). The rs10830962/G, rs10830963/G, rs1387153/T, and rs7936247/T were risk variants, whereas rs4753426/T was protective variant for GDM development. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 1h-plasma glucose (PG) were significantly different among genotypes at rs10830962 and rs10830963, whereas 2h-PG levels were not. Gene-gene interactions were not found among the five SNPs on GDM risk.

CONCLUSION

MTNR1B genetic variants have significant associations but no gene-gene interactions with GDM risk in central Chinese population. Furthermore, MTNR1B SNPs have significant relationships with glycemic traits.