The efficacy of immunotherapy in patients who underwent superovulation with intrauterine insemination

The definition of unexplained infertility: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on tests required to either diagnose unexplained infertility or use for research inclusion criteria. This leads to heterogeneity and bias affecting meta-analysis and best practice advice.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review analyses the variability of inclusion criteria applied to couples with unexplained infertility. We propose standardised criteria for use both in future research studies and clinical diagnosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CINAHL and MEDLINE online databases were searched up to November 2022 for all published studies recruiting couples with unexplained infertility, available in full text in the English language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected in an Excel spreadsheet. Results were analysed per category and methodology or reference range.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 375 relevant studies, only 258 defined their inclusion criteria. The most commonly applied inclusion criteria were semen analysis, tubal patency and assessment of ovulation in 220 (85%), 232 (90%), 205 (79.5%) respectively. Only 87/220 (39.5%) studies reporting semen analysis used the World Health Organization (WHO) limits. Tubal patency was accepted if bilateral in 145/232 (62.5%) and if unilateral in 24/232 (10.3%). Ovulation was assessed using mid-luteal serum progesterone in 115/205 (56.1%) and by a history of regular cycles in 87/205 (42.4%). Other criteria, including uterine cavity assessment and hormone profile, were applied in less than 50% of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the heterogeneity among studied populations with unexplained infertility. Development and application of internationally accepted criteria will improve the quality of research and future clinical care.

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.

Antiphospholipid syndrome and infertility

Antiphospholipid syndrome is a systemic autoimmune disease associated with obstetric complications along with vascular events affecting multiple organ systems in patients having positive titers of antiphospholipid antibodies. Eight to 20% of infertility cases have an unknown cause, part of which could be due to antiphospholipid syndrome. Although still debatable, many studies have addressed the relation between reproductive failure and antiphospholipid antibodies through the relation between antiphospholipid antibodies and unexplained infertility as well as the effect of antiphospholipid antibodies on the outcome of in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer. Few studies and cases have associated the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies with male infertility, describing morphofunctional penile abnormalities and testicular infarction. There are not enough data to support the routine practice of testing antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with infertility.

Antiphospholipid antibodies and infertility

Since the late 1980s some publications have proposed that antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) may have some relationship with infertility, considering reported deleterious effects that aPL exert on trophoblast proliferation and growth. Although not included in current classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome, many physicians investigate for aPL in patients with a history of infertility, including antibodies not listed in classification criteria, and most of those patients will receive anticoagulant therapy if any of those antibodies have a result considered positive. A review of literature was conducted searching for studies that investigated the association of aPL and infertility and if aPL positivity alters in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome. The definition of infertility, routine work-up to exclude other causes of infertility, definition of IVF failure as inclusion criteria and control populations were heterogeneous among studies. Most of them enrolled women over 40 years of age, and exclusion of other confounding factors was also inconsistent. Of 29 studies that assessed aPL positivity rates in infertile women, the majority had small sample sizes, implying a lack of power, and 13 (44.8%) reported higher frequency of aPL in infertile patients compared to controls, but most of them investigated a panel of non-criteria aPL tests, whose clinical significance is highly controversial. Only two studies investigated all three criteria tests, and medium-high titer of anticardiolipin cut-off conforming to international guidelines was used in one study. Considering IVF outcome, there was also disparity in this definition: few studies assessed the live birth rate, others the implantation rate. Of 14 publications that addressed the relationship between aPL and IVF outcome, only two described a detrimental effect of these autoantibodies. In conclusion, available data do not support an association between aPL and infertility, and aPL positivity does not seem to influence IVF outcome. Well-designed clinical studies recruiting women with a clear diagnosis of infertility and a high-risk aPL profile should be performed to test whether clinically relevant aPL do-or not-exert an effect on human fertility.

14th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies Task Force report on obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome

Pregnancy morbidity is one of the clinical manifestations used for classification criteria of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). During the 14th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies (aPL), a Task Force with internationally-known experts was created to carry out a critical appraisal of the literature available regarding the association of aPL with obstetric manifestations present in actual classification criteria (recurrent early miscarriage, fetal death, preeclampsia and placental insufficiency) and the quality of the evidence that treatment(s) provide benefit in terms of avoiding recurrent adverse obstetric outcomes. The association of infertility with aPL and the effectiveness of the treatment of patients with infertility and positive aPL was also investigated. This report presents current knowledge and limitations of published studies regarding pregnancy morbidity, infertility and aPL, identifying areas that need better investigative efforts and proposing how critical flaws could be avoided in future studies, as suggested by participants of the Task Force. Except for fetal death, there are limitations in the quality of the data supporting the association of aPL with obstetric complications included in the current APS classification criteria. Recommended treatments for all pregnancy morbidity associated to APS also lack well-designed studies to confirm its efficacy. APL does not seem to be associated with infertility and treatment does not improve the outcomes in infertile patients with aPL. In another section of the Task Force, Dr. Jane Salmon reviewed complement-mediated inflammation in reproductive failure in APS, considering new therapeutic targets to obstetric APS (Ob APS).

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.

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 of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in subfertility

BACKGROUND

The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in subfertility and their suitability for inclusion in meta-analyses have been assessed in the past and found to be insufficient. Our aim was to assess whether this quality has improved over time, particularly since the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, and to assess what proportion of trials could be included in the meta-analyses of pregnancy outcomes such as those included in Cochrane Reviews.

METHODS

A selection of subfertility trials published in 1990, 1996 and 2002 was collected from the Cochrane Menstrual Disorder and Subfertility Group (MDSG) database. Only trials published in English as full journal articles, claiming to be randomized and reporting on pregnancy outcomes, were included.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-four trials met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-four (15%) were found not to be randomized, despite claims, and only 10 trials (6%) provided adequate details on the methods of randomization and allocation concealment. Of these, only three had sufficient details extractable to allow for an intention-to-treat analysis of the outcome 'live birth'.

CONCLUSIONS

Although an improvement in some subfertility-specific issues was observed, the quality of reporting of RCTs still needs to improve to make them suitable for inclusion in meta-analyses such as those in the Cochrane Library.

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.

Immune testing in fertility practice: truth or deception?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Much attention has been paid to the role of immunology in reproductive success or failure. Every step in the establishment of normal pregnancy has been implicated as a possible site of immune-mediated reproductive failure. The widespread testing of antiphospholipid, antinuclear, antithyroid, and antisperm antibodies, as well as generalized immune testing, have thus been employed to diagnose patients with otherwise unexplained infertility or recurrent pregnancy loss. Controversial data surrounding the widespread and variable use of immune testing in current fertility practice is reviewed to determine which tests are warranted based on sound scientific evidence. Because it is postulated that early miscarriage, when occult, could represent a failure of embryo implantation indistinguishable from unexplained infertility, this analysis of immune testing includes a discussion of patients with recurrent pregnancy loss.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the increased prevalence of abnormal immune testing associated with early reproductive failure, the most rigorous studies have not proven a cause and effect between these phenomena. There is wide variation and inconsistency regarding this association, depending upon which test(s) are employed, the study methodology used, and the patient population under study. The significance of selected immunological test abnormalities associated with early reproductive failure is uncertain.

SUMMARY

Great variability exists in identifying candidates for immune testing, determining which tests to order, interpreting the test results, and offering immunologic treatments. This review argues that the use of widespread immune testing in clinical practice can not be supported by existing data. The resulting therapies are similarly of unconfirmed benefit and may cause harm.

Influence of antithyroid antibodies in euthyroid women on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome

PROBLEM

To investigate whether antithyroid antibodies (ATAs) affect the pregnancy outcome in euthyroid women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET).

METHOD OF STUDY

Thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPOA) and thyroglobulin antibody (TGA) were measured by radioligand assay kits that were used as ATAs in 79 patients with tubal or unexplained infertility who were enrolled in an IVF-ET program. Women who were positive for antinuclear antibody, lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibody, and rheumatoid factor were excluded from our study. The study group comprised 28 (29.1%) euthyroid women who were positive for TPOAs, TGAs, or both. Fifty-one euthyroid women without ATAs served as control subjects. The results were analyzed with linear regression analysis, Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, chi 2 test, and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the study group and the control group in patient characteristics such as age, infertility duration, and hormonal profile. There were also no significant differences between the two groups with respect to the number of retrieved oocytes, the fertilization rate, the number of embryos frozen, and the number of embryos transferred. There were no correlations between ATA (TPOA and TGA) titers and the fertilization rate. The clinical pregnancy rate per cycle was significantly lower in the study group, with 26.3% (10/38), compared with 39.3% (35/89) in the control group. The biochemical pregnancy rate per cycle and the miscarriage rate were significantly higher in the study group, 18.4% (7/38) and 40.0% (4/10), respectively, compared with 5.6% (5/89) and 11.4% (4/35), respectively, in the control group. In the study group, both TPOA and TGA titers were significantly higher in the biochemical pregnancy group than in the clinical pregnancy group or the nonpregnancy group. In 10 women with ATAs who achieved pregnancy after IVF-ET, both TPOA and TGA titers were significantly higher in the miscarriage group than in the ongoing pregnancy/delivery group.

CONCLUSION

ATAs in euthyroid women with tubal or unexplained infertility have an association with a poor pregnancy outcome after IVF-ET treatment.