Effect of intrauterine perfusion of human chorionic gonadotropin before embryo transfer after two or more implantation failures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Network meta-analysis of four common immunomodulatory therapies for the treatment of patients with thin endometrium

OBEJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of endometrial receptivity and pregnancy outcomes of four common immunomodulatory therapies for patients with thin endometrium.

METHOD

This systematic review and network meta-analysis using a literature search up to January 2024, to identify relevant trials comparing endometrial receptivity and pregnancy outcomes of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), infusion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (IG-CSF), and peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) for patients with thin endometrium. We used surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) to ranked four common immunomodulatory therapies on endometrium thickness, implantation rate (IR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and live birth rate (LBR). RoB2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

The pooled results of 22 studies showed that hCG (mean difference [MD]: 3.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46-4.64) and PRP (MD: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.20-1.76) significantly increase endometrium thickness. The hCG was the best among the IG-CSF (MD = -2.56, 95% CI = -4.30 to -0.82), PBMC (MD = -2.75, 95% CI = -5.49 to -0.01), and PRP (MD = -2.07, 95% CI = -3.84 to -0.30) in increasing endometrium thickness. However, IG-CSF and PRP significantly improved IR (IG-CSF: risk ratio (RR; IG-CSF: RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.06-1.67; PRP: RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.19-2.23), and LBR (IG-CSF: RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.16-2.02; PRP: RR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.08-2.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence reveals that hCG and subcutaneous or intrauterine CSF (SG-CSF) may be the best treatment options for current thin endometrium patients. However, future high-quality and large-scale studies are necessary to validate our findings.

Uterine infusion strategies for infertile patients with recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine infusion treatments were reported to be beneficial to embryo implantation and pregnancy outcomes, and considered as potential therapies for infertile patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF). Nevertheless, their efficiencies were controversial and there lack of consensus on which intrauterine treatment is the most effective.

METHODS

All prospective trials (in Chinese or English) were searched in Databases PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CNKI from July 2013 to July 2023. We included studies that investigated various uterine infusions, including chorionic gonadotropin, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, monocytes, platelet-rich plasma, etc. during IVF treatment and reported subsequent pregnancy outcomes.

RESULTS

We finally included 56 researches, including 40 randomized controlled trials, 14 non-randomized controlled trials, and 3 prospective cohort studies. This study included a total of 11 uterine perfusion methods: Placebo, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG), Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell (PBMC), Growth hormone (GH), dexamethasone (DEX), Embryo culture supernatant (ESC), PRP combined with G-CSF (PRP + G-CSF), RPR combined with subcutaneous injection of G-CSF (RPR + G-CSFsc), G-CSF combined with subcutaneous injection of AXaIU (G-CSF + AXaIUsc). Intrauterine infusion of HCG, PBMC, G-CSF, and PRP significantly improves pregnancy outcomes in patients with repeated implantation failure compared with blank controls or placebo, and PRP improved the clinical pregnancy and live birth most. GH and ESC infusion might improve the pregnancy outcomes, but uterine infusion of DEX was shown with high miscarriage. The combination therapy did not show a significant advantage over the mono-therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Intrauterine infusion of HCG, PBMC, G-CSF, and PRP are promising strategies for improving pregnancy outcomes for infertile patients with recurrent implantation failure. Among these treatments, PRP may be the best. More researches are required to explore the effect of drug combinations and less commonly used drugs as well.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our study was registered in PROSPERO and the ID was CRD42023467188.

Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†

STUDY QUESTION

Which add-ons are safe and effective to be used in ART treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Forty-two recommendations were formulated on the use of add-ons in the diagnosis of fertility problems, the IVF laboratory and clinical management of IVF treatment.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The innovative nature of ART combined with the extremely high motivation of the patients has opened the door to the wide application of what has become known as 'add-ons' in reproductive medicine. These supplementary options are available to patients in addition to standard fertility procedures, typically incurring an additional cost. A diverse array of supplementary options is made available, encompassing tests, drugs, equipment, complementary or alternative therapies, laboratory procedures, and surgical interventions. These options share the common aim of stating to enhance pregnancy or live birth rates, mitigate the risk of miscarriage, or expedite the time to achieving pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

ESHRE aimed to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations focusing on the safety and efficacy of add-ons currently used in fertility procedures in order to improve the quality of care for patients with infertility.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

ESHRE appointed a European multidisciplinary working group consisting of practising clinicians, embryologists, and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of infertility. Patient representatives were included in the working group. To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, recommendations were based on the professional experience and consensus of the working group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 46 independent international reviewers. A total of 272 comments were received and incorporated where relevant.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The multidisciplinary working group formulated 42 recommendations in three sections; diagnosis and diagnostic tests, laboratory tests and interventions, and clinical management.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Of the 42 recommendations, none could be based on high-quality evidence and only four could be based on moderate-quality evidence, implicating that 95% of the recommendations are supported only by low-quality randomized controlled trials, observational data, professional experience, or consensus of the development group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These guidelines offer valuable direction for healthcare professionals who are responsible for the care of patients undergoing ART treatment for infertility. Their purpose is to promote safe and effective ART treatment, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on realistic expectations. The guidelines aim to ensure that patients are fully informed about the various treatment options available to them and the likelihood of any additional treatment or test to improve the chance of achieving a live birth.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESHRE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. K.L. reports speakers fees from Merck and was part of a research study by Vitrolife (unpaid). T.E. reports consulting fees from Gynemed, speakers fees from Gynemed and is part of the scientific advisory board of Hamilton Thorne. N.P.P. reports grants from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare, speakers fees from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare. S.R.H. declares being managing director of Fertility Europe, a not-for-profit organization receiving financial support from ESHRE. I.S. is a scientific advisor for and has stock options from Alife Health, is co-founder of IVFvision LTD (unpaid) and received speakers' fee from the 2023 ART Young Leader Prestige workshop in China. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck A/S, consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos and Merck A/S, speakers fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Theramex and Organon, travel fees from Gedeon Richter. The other authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPRs) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or bedeemedinclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results.Theydo not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type.Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

ESHRE good practice recommendations on recurrent implantation failure

STUDY QUESTION

How should recurrent implantation failure (RIF) in patients undergoing ART be defined and managed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

This is the first ESHRE good practice recommendations paper providing a definition for RIF together with recommendations on how to investigate causes and contributing factors, and how to improve the chances of a pregnancy.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

RIF is a challenge in the ART clinic, with a multitude of investigations and interventions offered and applied in clinical practice, often without biological rationale or with unequivocal evidence of benefit.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

This document was developed according to a predefined methodology for ESHRE good practice recommendations. Recommendations are supported by data from the literature, if available, and the results of a previously published survey on clinical practice in RIF and the expertise of the working group. A literature search was performed in PubMed and Cochrane focussing on 'recurrent reproductive failure', 'recurrent implantation failure', and 'repeated implantation failure'.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

The ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure included eight members representing the ESHRE Special Interest Groups for Implantation and Early Pregnancy, Reproductive Endocrinology, and Embryology, with an independent chair and an expert in statistics. The recommendations for clinical practice were formulated based on the expert opinion of the working group, while taking into consideration the published data and results of the survey on uptake in clinical practice. The draft document was then open to ESHRE members for online peer review and was revised in light of the comments received.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The working group recommends considering RIF as a secondary phenomenon of ART, as it can only be observed in patients undergoing IVF, and that the following description of RIF be adopted: 'RIF describes the scenario in which the transfer of embryos considered to be viable has failed to result in a positive pregnancy test sufficiently often in a specific patient to warrant consideration of further investigations and/or interventions'. It was agreed that the recommended threshold for the cumulative predicted chance of implantation to identify RIF for the purposes of initiating further investigation is 60%. When a couple have not had a successful implantation by a certain number of embryo transfers and the cumulative predicted chance of implantation associated with that number is greater than 60%, then they should be counselled on further investigation and/or treatment options. This term defines clinical RIF for which further actions should be considered. Nineteen recommendations were formulated on investigations when RIF is suspected, and 13 on interventions. Recommendations were colour-coded based on whether the investigations/interventions were recommended (green), to be considered (orange), or not recommended, i.e. not to be offered routinely (red).

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

While awaiting the results of further studies and trials, the ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure recommends identifying RIF based on the chance of successful implantation for the individual patient or couple and to restrict investigations and treatments to those supported by a clear rationale and data indicating their likely benefit.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This article provides not only good practice advice but also highlights the investigations and interventions that need further research. This research, when well-conducted, will be key to making progress in the clinical management of RIF.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The meetings and technical support for this project were funded by ESHRE. N.M. declared consulting fees from ArtPRED (The Netherlands) and Freya Biosciences (Denmark); Honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, Merck, Abbott, and IBSA; being co-founder of Verso Biosense. He is Co-Chief Editor of Reproductive Biomedicine Online (RBMO). D.C. declared being an Associate Editor of Human Reproduction Update, and declared honoraria for lectures from Merck, Organon, IBSA, and Fairtility; support for attending meetings from Cooper Surgical, Fujifilm Irvine Scientific. G.G. declared that he or his institution received financial or non-financial support for research, lectures, workshops, advisory roles, or travelling from Ferring, Merck, Gedeon-Richter, PregLem, Abbott, Vifor, Organon, MSD, Coopersurgical, ObsEVA, and ReprodWissen. He is an Editor of the journals Archives of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biomedicine Online, and Editor in Chief of Journal Gynäkologische Endokrinologie. He is involved in guideline developments and quality control on national and international level. G.L. declared he or his institution received honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, Vianex/Organon, and MSD. He is an Associate Editor of Human Reproduction Update, immediate past Coordinator of Special Interest Group for Reproductive Endocrinology of ESHRE and has been involved in Guideline Development Groups of ESHRE and national fertility authorities. D.J.M. declared being an Associate Editor for Human Reproduction Open and statistical Advisor for Reproductive Biomedicine Online. B.T. declared being shareholder of Reprognostics and she or her institution received financial or non-financial support for research, clinical trials, lectures, workshops, advisory roles or travelling from support for attending meetings from Ferring, MSD, Exeltis, Merck Serono, Bayer, Teva, Theramex and Novartis, Astropharm, Ferring. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type. Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

Efficacy of intrauterine infusion therapy before embryo transfer in recurrent implantation failure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Previous studies of intrauterine infusion therapy in recurrent implantation failure (RIF) patients have shown conflicting results, and there is a lack of head-to-head horizontal comparisons between different drugs. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of four intrauterine infusion drugs, including human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP), in improving pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients through the network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of preimplantation intrauterine infusion for RIF were searched in the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline and CINAHL. Meanwhile, relevant data were extracted and Stata 15.0 software was applied to statistical analysis. A total of 21 studies with a sample size of 2917 cases were included in this study. Clinical pregnancy rate network meta-analysis showed that, intrauterine infusion of all four drugs is significantly better than the blank and placebo groups, while only PRP could significantly increase live birth rate compared with the blank and placebo groups. The SUCRA plots of clinical pregnancy and live birth rates showed a higher ranking of PRP and PBMCs. Early abortion intervention analysis found that only G-CSF is significantly better than the blank and placebo groups, and the SUCRA plot of G-CSF showed the highest ranking. All these findings confirmed that all four intrauterine infusion drugs can improve pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients to varying degrees, with PRP being the most effective. Further prospective, large-scale and high-quality RCTs are still necessary to determine the exact subgroups of benefit for the different drugs.

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.

Integrated Analysis of Multiple Microarrays Based on Raw Data Identified Novel Gene Signatures in Recurrent Implantation Failure

BACKGROUND

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is an intricate complication following IVF-ET, which refers to the situation that good-quality embryos repeatedly fail to implant following two or more IVF cycles. Intrinsic molecular mechanisms underlying RIF have not yet been fully elucidated. With enormous improvement in high-throughput technologies, researchers screened biomarkers for RIF using microarray. However, the findings of published studies are inconsistent. An integrated study on the endometrial molecular determinants of implantation will help to improve pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To identify robust differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and hub genes in endometrium associated with RIF, and to investigate the diagnostic role of hub genes in RIF.

METHODS

Raw data from five GEO microarrays regarding RIF were analyzed. Integrated genetic expression analyses were performed using the Robust Rank Aggregation method to identify robust DEGs. Enrichment analysis and protein-protein interaction (PPI) analysis were further performed with the robust DEGs. Cytohubba was used to screen hub genes based on the PPI network. GSE111974 was used to validate the expression and diagnostic role of hub genes in RIF.

RESULTS

1532 Robust DEGs were identified by integrating four GEO datasets. Enrichment analysis showed that the robust DEGs were mainly enriched in processes associated with extracellular matrix remodeling, adhesion, coagulation, and immunity. A total of 18 hub genes (HMGCS1, SQLE, ESR1, LAMC1, HOXB4, PIP5K1B, GNG11, GPX3, PAX2, TF, ALDH6A1, IDH1, SALL1, EYA1, TAGLN, TPD52L1, ST6GALNAC1, NNMT) were identified. 10 of the 18 hub genes were significantly differentially expressed in RIF patients as validated by GSE111974. The 10 hub genes (SQLE, LAMC1, HOXB4, PIP5K1B, PAX2, ALDH6A1, SALL1, EYA1, TAGLN, ST6GALNAC1) were effective in predicting RIF with an accuracy rate of 85%, specificity rate of 100%, and sensitivity rate of 88.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our integrated analysis identified novel robust DEGs and hub genes in RIF. The hub genes were effective in predicting RIF and will contribute to the understanding of comprehensive molecular mechanisms in RIF pathogenesis.

PAI-1 4G/4G Genotype Is Associated with Recurrent Implantation Failure: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

To detect the association between PAI-1 -675 4G/5G polymorphism and recurrent implantation failure (RIF). We performed this meta-analysis by searching databases of PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for case-control studies that evaluated the association between PAI 4G/5G polymorphism and RIF. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported to evaluate the association. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis and trim-and-fill analysis were performed to explore the robustness of the meta-analysis. Eight case-control studies consisted of 1273 women were included in this meta-analysis (including 697 RIF patients and 576 control participants). The combined results showed that the homozygous genotype of PAI-1 -675 4G/4G was significantly associated with RIF (OR 2.79, 95%CI 1.53-5.08, P-value = 0.0008). Meta-regression and subgroup analysis showed that sample origin is the primary source of heterogeneity (P-value for meta-regression: 0.005). Study quality also explains some heterogeneity (P-value for meta-regression: 0.03). Sensitivity analysis showed that the result was not significantly changed after excluding one study each time. Trim-and-fill analysis showed that the result was not significantly changed after filled with three studies. PAI -675 4G/4G genotype may serve as one of the predisposing factors of RIF. Women with PAI-1 4G/4G genotype were at higher risk of RIF. However, more high-quality studies are needed to confirm the conclusion.

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.

Determining Diagnostic Criteria of Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Retrospective Study of Two vs Three or More Implantation Failure

BACKGROUND

The definition of recurrent implantation failure (RIF) differs clinically, one of the most controversial diagnostic criteria is the number of failed treatment cycles. We tried to investigate whether the two implantation failure could be included in the diagnostic criteria of RIF.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the clinical data of patients (N=1518) aged under 40 years with two or more implantation failure, recruited from the Center for Reproductive Medicine of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2016 to June 2019.

RESULTS

After adjusting for confounding factors by using binary logistic regression, the results showed that partial general information and: distribution of associated factors were significant differences such as maternal age (aOR=1.054, P=0.001), type of cycle (aOR=2.040, P<0.001), stage of embryos development (aOR=0.287, P<0.001), number of embryos transferred (aOR=0.184, P<0.001), female factor (tubal pathology) (aOR=0.432, P=0.031) and male factor (aOR=1.734, P=0.002) between the groups with two and three or more unexplained implantation failure. And further explored whether these differential factors had a significant negative impact on pregnancy outcome, the results showed that: for patients who had three unexplained implantation failure, in the fourth cycle of ET, the live birth rate decreased significantly with age (aOR=0.921, P<0.001), and the live birth rate of blastocyst transfer was significantly higher than that of cleavage embryo transfer (aOR=1.826, P=0.007). At their first assisted pregnancy treatment after the diagnosis of RIF according to these two different definitions, there were no significant difference in the biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate and abortion rate (P>0.05), but the live birth rate (35.64% vs 42.95%, P=0.004) was significantly different. According to the definition of 'two or more failed treatment cycles', the live birth rate of the first ET treatment after RIF diagnosis was significantly lower than that of patients according to the definition of 'three or more failed treatment cycles'.

CONCLUSION

For patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure, two implantation failure cannot be included in the diagnostic criteria of RIF. This study supports the generally accepted definition of three or more failed treatment cycles for RIF.

Novel predictive and therapeutic options for better pregnancy outcome in frozen embryo transfer cycles

Since 1978, in the first decades of in vitro fertilization (IVF), the use of ovarian hyperstimulation allowed for the development and transfer of multiple embryos. As IVF technology improved, the number of multiple pregnancies increased, which led to gradual reduction in the number of embryos that were transferred. Embryo freezing (vitrification) was recommended to allow subsequent transfer if the fresh cycle was unsuccessful. However, experimentation has continued to improve pregnancy outcomes. We discuss here the significance of frozen embryo transfer cycle and the impact of uterine and peripheral immunity dominated by NK cells and regulatory T cells and human chorionic gonadotropin on pregnancy outcome in this innovative mode of IVF therapy.

Diagnostic and therapeutic options in recurrent implantation failure

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is an uncommon, imprecisely defined clinical disorder characterized by failure to achieve pregnancy after repeated embryo transfers. The diverse etiologies and incomplete understanding of RIF provide significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenges to patients and providers. Careful clinical evaluation prior to assisted reproduction can uncover many treatable causes, including thyroid dysfunction, submucosal myomas, and tobacco use. The more-subtle causes often require a more-targeted assessment. Undetected, small polyps or small areas of intrauterine synechiae are relatively common and easily treated contributors to RIF. Molecular and cellular abnormalities pose a greater therapeutic challenge. Putative causes of RIF, including progesterone resistance, shifted window of receptivity, decreased integrin expression, and immunologic disturbances, should be considered in the evaluation of a patient with otherwise unexplained RIF. It may also be true that a more complex and standardized definition of RIF would be helpful in these cases. In this paper, we review the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to RIF, with emphasis on disorders of endometrial receptivity.

Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin: New Pleiotropic Functions for an "Old" Hormone During Pregnancy

Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) is the first specific molecule synthesized by the embryo. hCG RNA is transcribed as early as the eight-cell stage, and the blastocyst produces the protein before its implantation. hCG in the uterine microenvironment binds with its cognate receptor, luteinizing hormone/choriogonadotropin receptor (LHCGR), on the endometrial surface. This binding stimulates leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) production and inhibits interleukin-6 (IL-6) production by epithelial cells of the endometrium. These effects ensure essential help in the preparation of the endometrium for initial embryo implantation. hCG also effects angiogenic and immunomodulatory actions as reported in many articles by our laboratories and other ones. By stimulating angiogenesis and vasculogenesis, hCG provides the placenta with an adequate maternal blood supply and optimal embryo nutrition during the invasion of the uterine endometrium. The immunomodulatory properties of hCG are numerous and important for programming maternal immune tolerance toward the embryo. The reported effects of hCG on uterine NK, Treg, and B cells, three major cell populations for the maintenance of pregnancy, demonstrate the role of this embryonic signal as a crucial immune regulator in the course of pregnancy. Human embryo rejection for hCG-related immunological reasons has been studied in different ways, and a sufficient dose of hCG seems to be necessary to maintain maternal tolerance. Different teams have studied the addition of hCG in patients suffering from recurrent miscarriages or implantation failures. hCG could also have a beneficial or a negative impact on autoimmune diseases during pregnancy. In this review, we will discuss the immunological impacts of hCG during pregnancy and if this hormone might be used therapeutically.