A comparative evaluation of subendometrial and intrauterine platelet-rich plasma treatment for women with recurrent implantation failure

Autologous platelet-rich plasma for assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) consists of plasma and a concentrate of platelets extracted from fresh whole blood of the person being treated. Research has suggested that intrauterine or intraovarian infusion/injection of PRP before embryo transfer may improve endometrial receptivity and response to ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproduction. We compared these interventions to standard treatment, placebo, or other interventions (mechanical or pharmacological).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine and intraovarian infusion/injection of platelet-rich plasma in infertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Epistemonikos database in January 2023. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the trial authors and experts in the field for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the application of PRP in the uterine cavity, ovaries, or both versus no intervention, placebo, or any other intervention (either mechanical or pharmacological) in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including use of the updated risk of bias tool (RoB 2). The primary outcomes were live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) and miscarriage. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, complications of the procedure, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, preterm delivery, and fetal abnormality. We estimated the average effect of the interventions by fitting a Der Simonian-Laird's random-effects meta-analysis model. We reported pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We restricted the primary analyses to trials at low risk of bias for the outcomes and performed sensitivity analyses that included all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 parallel-group RCTs that recruited a total of 1069 women. We identified three different comparison groups. Using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for almost all outcomes. Intrauterine injection/infusion of platelet-rich plasma versus no intervention or placebo Nine studies evaluated intrauterine PRP versus no intervention or placebo. Eight included women with at least two or three previous implantation failures. Only one was assessed at low risk of bias for each outcome. This study provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP injection versus no intervention on live birth (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.14; 94 women) and miscarriage (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.09; 94 women). If the likelihood of live birth following no intervention is assumed to be 17%, then the likelihood following intrauterine PRP would be 7% to 40%; and if the risk of miscarriage following no intervention is 4%, then the risk following intrauterine PRP would be 1% to 24%. When we analyzed all studies (regardless of risk of bias), we found very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with placebo or no intervention on live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.86; I² = 54%; 6 studies, 564 women) and miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.01; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 504 women). The study at low risk of bias provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with no intervention on clinical pregnancy (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.76; 94 women) and ectopic pregnancy (OR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.95; 94 women). The synthesis of all studies provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with placebo or no intervention on clinical pregnancy (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.50 to 3.27; I² = 24%; 9 studies, 824 women), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.68, 95% CI 0.81 to 8.88; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 240 women), and ectopic pregnancy (OR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.95; 1 study, 94 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intrauterine infusion of PRP may increase the risk of preterm delivery compared with no intervention (OR 8.02, 95% CI 1.72 to 37.33; 1 study, 120 women; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported pain, infection, allergic reaction, fetal growth restriction, or fetal abnormality. Intrauterine infusion of platelet-rich plasma versus intrauterine infusion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor Two RCTs evaluated intrauterine PRP versus intrauterine granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF); both included women with thin endometrium, and neither was judged at low risk of bias for any outcome. We are uncertain about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with intrauterine G-CSF on live birth (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.81; 1 study, 132 women; very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage (OR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.96; 1 study, 132 women; very low-certainty evidence), and clinical pregnancy (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.35; 2 studies, 172 women; very low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported adverse outcomes other than miscarriage. Intraovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma versus no intervention One RCT evaluated PRP injection into both ovaries versus no intervention; it was judged at high risk of bias for the two outcomes it reported. We are uncertain about the effect of intraovarian PRP injection compared with no intervention on ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.63; 73 women; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.60; 73 women; very low-certainty evidence). The study examined no safety outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the effect of intrauterine or intraovarian administration of PRP on outcomes of assisted reproduction technology in infertile women. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution. Only one of the 12 included studies was judged at low risk of bias. Other limitations of the included trials were failure to report live birth, poor reporting of methods, lack of prospective protocol registration, low precision due to the small number of enrolled participants, indirectness due to the specific subpopulations and settings studied, and insufficient or absent safety data.

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.

Clinical evaluation of autologous platelet-rich plasma therapy for intrauterine adhesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) administration in reducing adhesion recurrence and improving pregnancy outcomes in patients with intrauterine adhesion (IUA).

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) from inception to February 10, 2023, without any language or regional restrictions. We used random-effects models to assess odds ratios (OR) and weight mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Our meta-analysis included a total of 730 patients from 10 clinical studies (6 RCTs and 4 non-RCTs). The results showed that PRP administration significantly increased endometrial thickness (WMD = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.40-1.19; P < 0.001; I² = 0.0%), menstrual volume (WMD = 2.96, 95% CI = 2.30-3.61; P < 0.001; I² = 0.0%), and days of menstruation (WMD = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.86-1.41; P < 0.001; I² = 0.0%). Additionally, the clinical pregnancy rate was also improved (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.19-2.78; P = 0.006; I² = 0.0%). However, there was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding the effects of PRP on the recurrence rate of moderate to severe IUA, changes in AFS scores, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate.

Conclusions

Our analysis confirms that autologous PRP is an effective treatment for IUA. However, the limited sample size suggests that the results should be interpreted with caution. Therefore, larger and well-designed studies are necessary in the future to confirm these findings and explore the optimal PRP dosing regimens further.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023391115.

The value of platelet-rich plasma in women with previous implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value of intrauterine PRP to improve IVF outcome in women with previous implantation failure.

METHODS

Screening of Pubmed, Web of Science, and other databases from inception to August 2022 using the keywords related to "platelet-rich plasma" OR "PRP" AND "IVF" "implantation failure." Twenty-nine studies (3308 participants) were included in our analysis, 13 were RCTs, 6 were prospective cohorts, 4 were prospective single arm, and 6 were retrospective analyses. Extracted data included settings of the study, study type, sample size, participants' characteristics, route, volume, timing of PRP administration, and outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Implantation rate was reported in 6 RCTs (886 participants) and 4 non-RCTs (732 participants). The odds ratio (OR) effect estimate was 2.62 and 2.06, with 95% CI of 1.83, 3.76, and 1.03-4.11, respectively. Endometrial thickness was compared in 4 RCTs (307 participants) and 9 non-RCTs (675 participants), which showed a mean difference of 0.93 and 1.16, with 0.59-1.27 and 0.68-1.65 95% CI, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PRP administration improves implantation, clinical pregnancy, chemical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth rates, and endometrial thickness in women with previous implantation failure.

Intrauterine Infusion of Leukocyte-Poor Platelet-Rich Plasma Is an Effective Therapeutic Protocol for Patients with Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The clinical application of autologous leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP) in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is rare. This retrospective observational cohort study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of LP-PRP intrauterine infusion in patients with RIF.

METHODS

Patients with RIF undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET) from January 2019 to December 2021 (n = 118) were enrolled, with those undergoing LP-PRP intrauterine infusion as the PRP group (n = 64), and those receiving no LP-PRP treatment as the control group (n = 54). The beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG)-positive rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rate (LBR), and miscarriage rate (MR) per ET cycle were compared.

RESULTS

The β-hCG-positive rate (57.8% vs. 38.9%, p = 0.041), CPR (45.3% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.022), and LBR per ET cycle (42.2% vs. 18.5%, p = 0.009) were higher in the PRP group than in the control group, and the three variables (62.5% vs. 41.2%, p = 0.040, 47.5% vs. 23.5%, p = 0.033, and 47.5% vs. 20.6%, p = 0.027) in the PRP group transferred with the blastocyst-stage embryos were also higher than those in the control group. The MR was similar in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The LP-PRP treatment could improve the β-hCG-positive rate, CPR, and LBR in RIF patients undergoing FET cycles.

Efficacy of Autologous Intrauterine Infusion of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Patients with Unexplained Repeated Implantation Failures in Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Controversial conclusions have been made in previous studies regarding the influence of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the reproductive outcomes of women with repeated implantation failures (RIF) who are undergoing embryo transfer (ET). (2) Methods: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of PRP intrauterine infusion in patients with unexplained RIF, who are undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic injection (ICSI), by a systematic review and meta-analysis. (3) Results: A fixed-effects model was used, and 795 cases and 834 controls were included in these studies. The pooling of the results showed the beneficial effect of PRP which were compared with those of the control in terms of the clinical pregnancy rates (n = 10, risk ratio (RR) = 1.79, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.55, 2.06; p < 0.01, I2 = 40%), live birth rates (n = 4, RR = 2.92, 95% CI: 2.22, 3.85; p < 0.01, I2 = 83%), implantation rates (n = 3, RR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.34, 2.26; p < 0.01, I2 = 0%), and positive serum β-HCG 14 days after the ET (n = 8, RR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.54, 2.03; p < 0.01, I2 = 36%). However, we did not find that the miscarriage rates indicated a significant difference between the two groups (n = 6, RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.51; p = 0.83, I2 = 0%). (4) Conclusions: The findings of this systemic review and meta-analysis suggest that PRP appears to improve the results of IVF/ICSI treatments in the cases of unexplained RIF.