Endometrium immunomodulation by intrauterine insemination administration of treated peripheral blood mononuclear cell prior frozen/thawed embryos in patients with repeated implantation failure

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.

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.

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.

The effectiveness of immunomodulatory therapies for patients with repeated implantation failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

This meta-analysis analyzed the clinical pregnancy outcomes of repeated implantation failure (RIF) patients treated with immunomodulatory therapies. Publications (published by August 16, 2021) were identified by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The quality of the studies was evaluated with the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool, and a network meta-analysis was performed with Stata 14.0. The outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rate (LBR), and implantation rate (IR). The results of our network meta-analysis of 16 RCTs (including 2,008 participants) show that PBMCs, PRP, and SC-GCSF can significantly improve the CPR compared with LMWH (PBMCs: OR 2.15; 95% CI 1.21-3.83; PRP: OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.08-5.24; SC-GCSF: OR 2.46; 95% CI 1.05-5.72). The LBR of PRP was significantly higher than those of IU-GCSF (OR 3.81; 95% CI 1.22-11.86), LMWH (OR 4.38; 95% CI 1.50-12.90), and intralipid (OR 3.85; 95% CI 1.03-14.29), and the LBR of PBMCs was also significantly better than that of LMWH (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.14-4.85). Furthermore, PRP treatment significantly improved the IR compared with LMWH treatment (OR 2.81; 95% CI 1.07-7.4). The limited evidence from existing RCTs suggests that PBMCs and PRP are the best therapeutic options for RIF patients. However, owing to the quantity limitation, more top-quality research is required to obtain additional high-level evidence.

Endometrium Immunomodulation to Prevent Recurrent Implantation Failure in Assisted Reproductive Technology

After more than four decades of assisted reproductive technology (ART) practice worldwide, today more than 60% of women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments fail to become pregnant after the first embryo transfer and nearly 20% of patients are suffering from unexplained recurrent implantation failures (RIFs) and repeated pregnancy loss (RPL). The literature reported different causes of RIF–RPL, mainly multifactorial, endometrial and idiopathic. RIF remains a black box because of the complicated categorization and causes of this physio-pathological dysregulation of implantation and pregnancy process after ovarian stimulation. Many options were suggested as solutions to treat RIF–RPL with controversial results on their usefulness. In this article, we reviewed different possible therapeutic options to improve implantation rates and clinical outcomes. Based on our experience we believe that endometrium immunomodulation after intrauterine insemination of activated autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) can be a promising therapeutic solution. On the other hand, peripheral lymphocyte balance typing, specific cytokines and interleukins profiling can be proposed as predictive biomarkers of implantation before embryo transfer.

Novel therapeutic options for treatment of recurrent implantation failure

Despite the challenges in studying recurrent implantation failure, progress is currently being made in therapeutic options to help those who suffer from recurrent implantation failure. Three of the most promising therapeutic options for recurrent implantation failure include immune therapies such as peripheral blood mononuclear cells, platelet rich plasma and subcutaneous granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.

Intrauterine administration of activated peripheral blood mononuclear cells in intrauterine insemination: a prospective double-blind randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of intrauterine administration of activated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) on intrauterine insemination (IUI) success rates.

METHODS

This prospective double-blind randomized parallel clinical trial included 213 patients undergoing IUI at the Fertilys clinic. PBMC were isolated on the day of ovulation (day 0; D0) and stimulated with phytohemagglutinin (PHA) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) for 48 hours (day 2; D2). Patients in the PBMC group (n = 108) underwent in utero administration of 1.10⁶ cells on D2, while patients in the control group (n = 105) were administered sperm-washing medium. Distribution of CD4 T lymphocyte populations (n = 61) was assessed on D0 and D2. Pregnancy and live birth rates were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Demographic and clinical characteristics, pregnancy rates, and live birth rates were not significantly different between the PBMC and control groups. Significantly higher levels of T helper (Th) 2, Th22, and T regulatory cells (P < 0.0001) and lower levels of Th17 cells were observed in hCG-activated PBMC at D2 than at D0.

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine administration of PBMC was not beneficial in IUI patients. New clinical approaches to better identify patients requiring endometrium immunomodulation needs to be addressed.

Comparative efficacies of different immunotherapy regimens in recurrent implantation failure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

For patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF), immune system imbalances have become the focus of research. The effects of different classes of immunotherapies on improving pregnancy outcomes have not been fully established. This network meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of popular immunotherapies in women with RIF. We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases as well as clinical trial registration websites. Randomized controlled trials comparing immunotherapeutic outcomes were included. We performed the random-effects network meta-analysis to compare efficacy measures. A total of 21 trials involving 2277 participants and 8 immunotherapies were eligible for this study. Patients that had been administered with PBMCs, G-CSF, PRP, and sirolimus exhibited higher CPR than those administered with the placebo (2.63, 1.71-4.06; 2.03, 1.35-3.05; 1.98, 1.02-3.84; 2.55, 1.36-4.79; and 3.95, 1.33-11.72, respectively). For IR, only PBMCs and G-CSF were significantly more effective than the placebo (2.92, 1.39-6.12; 2.66, 1.16-6.06, respectively). In terms of LBR, PBMCs (2.96, 1.67-5.27) and sirolimus (3.55, 1.18-10.64) were effective. However, r-hLIF (0.25, 0.10-0.62) had a reduced risk of LBR. No therapeutic regimen was found to have significantly decreased MR, but PBMCs exhibited the lowest rank among all interventions (0.28, 0.06-1.44). To improve clinical pregnancy while reducing miscarriage outcomes, PBMCs might be a beneficent therapeutic option for RIF in the future.

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

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of treatment with autologous activated platelet-rich plasma (PRP), administered to either the subendometrium (SE-PRP) or endometrial surface (intrauterine; IU-PRP), against controls.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary fertility unit.

PATIENTS

Women aged <40 years with a history of recurrent implantation failure undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET) (n = 318).

INTERVENTIONS

In SE-PRP, PRP was injected into the subendometrial space transvaginally in the luteal phase of the previous cycle of embryo transfer under ultrasound guidance (n = 55). In IU-PRP, PRP was administered during the index FET cycle when the endometrium was approximately 7 mm (n = 109). Both SE-PRP and IU-PRP groups were administered 300 μg of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) subcutaneously once a day for 3 days to boost white blood cells (WBC) and growth factor production in the PRP sample. The control group consisted of women who did not choose PRP treatment and underwent standard FET with no intervention (n = 154).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Ongoing pregnancy rate or live birth rate (OPR/LBR) per transfer cycle, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per transfer cycle, and miscarriage rate.

RESULTS

As a result, OPR/LBR was higher in the SE-PRP (22/55, 40%) and IU-PRP (45/109, 41.3%) groups than that in the control group (34/154, 22.1%). It was similar between the SE-PRP and IU-PRP groups. Moreover, CPR showed a similar trend with a higher rate in the SE-PRP (28/55, 51%) and IU-PRP (57/109, 52.3%) groups than that in the controls (52/154, 33.8%). No statistical difference in the CPR was noted between the SE-PRP and IU-PRP groups. The miscarriage rate was similar in all three groups (14/55, 25.45%; 25/109, 22.23%; and 34/154, 22.07%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In women with a history of recurrent implantation failure, PRP treatment appears to improve FET outcome with an increase in OPR/LBR. However, SE-PRP treatment does not offer any advantage over lesser invasive IU-PRP treatment.

The Impact of New Immunological Therapeutic Strategies on Recurrent Miscarriage and Recurrent Implantation Failure

Maternal-fetal immune dysregulation is one of the risk factors that increases the probability of embryo rejection and reproductive failure. The stimulation of immunological tolerance and suppression of immunological rejection are prerequisites for protecting embryos and preventing immunological attacks. Hence, it appears that immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive therapies can manage reproductive failures by controlling immune cells. The current medical literature has shown that immunotherapy approaches and cell therapy have promising results in improving pregnancy outcomes and live birth rates. These outcomes are obtained by regulating maternal immune responses, and exerting positive effects on human reproductive processes.

Circulating MMP-7 and VEGF as potential predictive biomarkers for recurrent implantation failures

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is considered to be one of the major limiting factors of assisted reproductive technology (ART) programme success. The current study focused on the investigation of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), tissue inhibitors of MMPs (TIMPs), cytokines and cell adhesion molecules in peripheral blood (PB) and follicular fluid (FF) obtained from 44 women aged between 25 and 39 years old and undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). These women were divided into two groups: 22 RIF women with embryo implantation failures after the transfer of at least four fresh or frozen-thawed good quality embryos in a minimum of three ICSI cycles, and 22 ICSI success women (controls) who achieved a clinical pregnancy at their first ICSI attempt. The PB and FF samples were obtained from each patient on the day of oocyte retrieval. MMP-1, -2, -3, -7, -9, TIMP-1, -2, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF), vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM1) and intercellular adhesion molecules 1 (ICAM1) were analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay of PB and FF. Our results showed significant decreases in PB MMP-7 and PB VEGF in the RIF group compared with controls [281.11 (33-614) pg/ml vs 119.92 (27-441) pg/ml; P-value = 0.030] and [82.54 (25.94-210.20) pg/ml vs 30.93 (13.62-193.33) pg/ml; P-value = 0.022; respectively]. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed informative area under the curve values for PB MMP-7, as well as for PB VEGF, making them able to be proposed as biomarkers of the RIF. Therefore, circulating MMP-7 and VEGF seem to play an interesting role in embryo implantation in in vitro fertilization (IVF)/ICSI cycles and could be proposed as circulating biomarkers of the RIF. These results could be helpful for clinicians and patients to choose the best rescue strategy and treatment to minimize implantation failure in women undergoing IVF/ICSI procedures after the first attempt.

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.

Efficacy of therapies and interventions for repeated embryo implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of the different therapeutic options for repeated embryo implantation failure (RIF) on a subsequent IVF cycle outcome. Twenty-two RCTs and nineteen observational studies were included. Pooling of results showed a beneficial effect of intrauterine PBMC infusion on both CPR (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.58-3.00; p < 0.00001; OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.22-3.36; p = 0.006) and LBR (RR 2.41; 95% CI 1.40-4.16; p = 0.002; OR 3.73; 95% CI 1.13-12.29; p = 0.03), of subcutaneous G-CSF administration on CPR (RR 2.29; 95% CI 1.58-3.31; p < 0.0001) and of intrauterine PRP infusion on CPR (RR 2.45; 95% CI 1.55-3.86; p = 0.0001). Observational studies also demonstrated a positive effect of IVIG and intrauterine hCG infusion on both CPR and LBR and of atosiban on CPR. Studies investigating intrauterine G-CSF infusion, LMWH, intravenous intralipid, hysteroscopy, blastocyst-stage ET, ZIFT, PGT-A and AH failed to observe an impact on IVF outcome. The quality of the evidence that emerged from RCTs focused on intrauterine PBMC infusion and subcutaneous G-CSF administration was moderate. For all other therapies/interventions it varied from low to very low. In conclusion, intrauterine PBMC infusion and subcutaneous G-CSF administration are the most promising therapeutic options for RIF. However, further well conducted RCTs are necessary before their introduction into clinical practice.

Human Chorionic Gonadotropin-Mediated Immune Responses That Facilitate Embryo Implantation and Placentation

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) serves as one of the first signals provided by the embryo to the mother. Exactly at the time when the first step of the implantation process is initiated and the blastocyst adheres to the maternal endometrium, the embryonic tissue starts to actively secrete hCG. Shortly thereafter, the hormone can be detected in the maternal circulation where its concentration steadily increases throughout early pregnancy as it is continuously released by the forming placenta. Accumulating evidence underlines the critical function of hCG for embryo implantation and placentation. hCG not only regulates biological aspects of these early pregnancy events but also supports maternal immune cells in their function as helpers in the establishment of an adequate embryo-endometrial relationship. In view of its early presence in the maternal circulation, hCG has the potential to influence both local uterine immune cell populations as well as peripheral ones. The current review aims to summarize recent literature on the participation of innate and adaptive immune cells in embryo implantation and placentation with a specific focus on their regulation by hCG.