Atosiban and Pregnancy Outcomes Following In Vitro Fertilization Treatment for Infertile Women Requiring One, Two, or More Embryo Transfer Cycles: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

Atosiban application in fresh ET cycle is effective for women undergoing repeated embryo implantation failures, especially for advanced-age obese patients

To assess the effect of atosiban in pregnancy outcomes of the fresh embryo transfer (ET), the retrospective cohort study was conducted. Six hundred and eighty-nine cases (using atosiban) and 1377 age and ET cycle-matched controls were collected from the January 2016 to May 2022 to perform the fresh IVF-ET cycle. The essential characteristics and pregnancy outcomes were analyzed. Conditional logistic regression analysis and subgroup analysis were performed. In the whole samples, atosiban had no effects in the pregnancy outcomes. Subgroup analyses suggested that atosiban could improve the clinical pregnancy in more than 3 ET cycles (OR 1.667, 95% CI 1.108-2.509, P = 0.014). Moreover, the improvement of clinical pregnancy was mainly present in the advanced-age women (age ≥ 35 years: OR 1.851, 95% CI 1.136-3.014, P = 0.013), obesity (BMI ≥ 24 kg/m2: OR 2.550, 95% CI 1.105-5.883, P = 0.028) and cleavage stage embryo (D3 embryo: OR 1.721, 95% CI 1.098-2.696, P = 0.018) among the repeated implantation failures (RIF). Atosiban could also improve the live birth for the obese women. Further, in the RIF, atosiban application was strongly recommended for the advanced-age infertility women, who also had the risk of obesity with the implantation of the cleavage stage embryo. In conclusion, atosiban could improve pregnancy outcomes for the advanced-age and obese women in RIF, especially while implanting the cleavage stage embryo in fresh ET cycle.

Effect of atosiban on in vitro fertilization pregnancy outcome among women with endometriosis in presence or absence of adenomyosis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effect of atosiban on in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancy outcome among women with both endometriosis and adenomyosis, and compared it to that of patients with endometriosis but without adenomyosis and that of patients with tubal factor only.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

106 infertile women (176 embryo transfers) from a medical center in Taiwan were included in the analysis, where 34 (54), 34 (66), and 38 (56) cases (embryo transfers) were endometriosis without adenomyosis, endometriosis with adenomyosis, and tubal infertility factor only, respectively. Adenomyosis morphologies were classified using an ultrasound-based classification system. The logistic generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze the association between atosiban use and pregnancy outcomes.

RESULTS

The crude pregnancy rates for the endometriosis-only group were significantly higher than those for the endometriosis + adenomyosis group (i.e., biochemical pregnancy: 50.0% versus 29.7%, p = 0.041; ongoing pregnancy: 35.2% versus 16.9%, p = 0.038). Significantly higher chances of biochemical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy among endometriosis patients without adenomyosis versus those with both endometriosis and adenomyosis were found (odds ratios [95% confidence intervals]: 2.981 [1.307, 6.803]; p = 0.009, 2.694 [1.151, 6.304]; p = 0.022). A significant positive association between atosiban use and biochemical pregnancy existed among endometriosis cases without adenomyosis (a 2.43-fold [1.01, 5.89] increase in successful pregnancy; p<0.05), but not for the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor pregnancy outcomes among adenomyosis-affected women were confirmed. The use of atosiban significantly enhanced IVF pregnancy among endometriosis patients without adenomyosis.

Efficacy of atosiban for repeated implantation failure in frozen embryo transfer cycles

Atosiban was commonly added to improve pregnancy outcomes of patients with repeated embryo implantation failure (RIF). In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of atosiban before transferring the frozen-thawed embryo to RIF patients. This retrospective study was conducted in the Hospital for Reproductive Medicine affiliated to Shandong University from August 2017 to June 2021. A total of 1774 women with a history of RIF undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET) were included in this study. All the participants were classified into atosiban or control group: Group A included 677 patients who were administered atosiban intravenously 30 min prior to FET with a dose of 37.5 mg; Group B included 1097 patients who received no atosiban before the transfer. There were no significant differences observed in the live birth rate (LBR) (39.73% vs. 39.02%, P = 0.928) between the two groups. Other secondary outcomes including biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, clinical miscarriage rate and preterm birth rate were similar between the two groups (all P > 0.05). However, subgroup analysis demonstrated significantly higher preterm birth rates in the control group compared with the atosiban group (0 versus 3.0%, P = 0.024) in the natural FET cycles. Atosiban may not improve pregnancy outcomes of RIF patients in FET cycles. However, the effects of Atosiban on pregnancy outcomes should be assessed in clinical trials with larger sample sizes.

Efficacy of atosiban for repeated embryo implantation failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Repeated embryo implantation failure (RIF) posed a significant challenge in assisted reproduction. Evidence of its therapeutic effectiveness including atosiban used around embryo transfer to improve pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) remained inconsistent. This study aimed to explore the efficacy of atosiban on pregnancy outcomes of patients with RIF who received IVF-ET.

METHODS

The research was designed using the PICOS format. A systematic search of four English databases, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and one Chinse database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) was conducted. The time range was from inception to December 10, 2022. Then trials comparing the efficacy of atosiban and control group on pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients who receive IVF-ET were included. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed to reduce the influence of heterogeneity between included studies. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The main outcome measure was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). For the analyses, StataMP 17.0 (Stata Corporation, USA) was used.

RESULTS

Two prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one prospective cohort study and four retrospective cohort studies were included. Our results showed that atosiban was associated with higher clinical pregnancy rate (RR=1.54, 95% CI: 1.365-1.735, P < 0.001, I^{2 =} 0.0%). The results of subgroup analysis based on study types (prospective randomized controlled clinical trial, retrospective cohort study and prospective cohort study) showed that in all types of studies, CPR of atosiban group was significantly higher than controlled group. The results of subgroup analysis based upon the diagnostic criteria of number of previous embryo transfer failures showed that the intervention of atosiban improved the CPR whether in participants with 2 previous ET failures or in participants with 3 previous ET failures. Nevertheless, the incidence of ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, and miscarriages were not significantly different between the case and control groups.

CONCLUSION

For women who are undergoing IVF-ET and have experienced repeated embryo implantation failure, atosiban may be an important factor in enhancing pregnancy outcomes. To confirm this conclusion, more thorough, prospective randomized controlled studies of sizable sample sizes with well design are required.

Approaches to Improve Endometrial Receptivity in Case of Repeated Implantation Failures

Repeated implantation failures are a constant challenge in reproductive medicine with a significant impact both on health providers and on infertile couples. Several approaches have been proposed so far as effective; however, accumulative data have clarified that most of the treatment options do not have the evidence base for a generalized application to be suggested by the relevant societies. Implantation failures are attributed to either poor quality embryos or to defected endometrial receptivity. The current review aims to summarize in a systematic way all the new trends in managing RIF via interference with endometrial receptivity. The authors focus mainly, but not exclusively, on endometrial injury prior to embryo transfer and endometrial priming with autologous cells or biological agents. To this direction, a systematic search of the Pubmed database has been conducted taking into account the emerged evidence of the last two decades. All the suggested interventions are herein presented and analyzed in terms of reproductive outcomes. It is evident that properly powered and designed randomized trials are needed to support a new standard approach in RIF treatment that will safely be incorporated in national and international guidelines.