Effectiveness comparison between Endometrial Receptivity Array, Immune Profiling and the combination in treating patients with multiple implantation failure

The use of propensity score matching to assess the effectiveness of the endometrial receptivity analysis in patients with recurrent implantation failure

Background

One potential cause of implantation failure is abnormal endometrial receptivity, and how to objectively evaluate endometrial receptivity has been a matter of great concern. Endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA), a next-generation sequencing-based test that assesses endometrial gene expression, may be valuable in predicting endometrial receptivity, but whether ERA improves pregnancy outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is currently controversial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of ERA on pregnancy outcomes in patients with RIF.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study analysis for a population of patients with RIF undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles in the reproductive center of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2019 to December 2022(n=1598). FET cycles with personalized embryo transfer (PET) under ERA guidance were included in the ERA group (n=43); after using propensity score matching (PSM), a total of 120 FET cycles were included as a control group. Pregnancy outcomes were compared between the two groups. Further, the relationship between the number of previous implant failures and the rate of implant window displacement was discussed. The factors affecting the window of implantation (WOI) displacement were also assessed.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, spontaneous abortion rate, and live birth rate between the ERA group and the matched control patients (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the rate of WOI displacement between patients in the moderate or severe groups (P > 0.05) and no significant difference in pregnancy outcome ( P>0.05). Finally, analysis of the clinical data of patients in the receptive and non-receptive groups did not uncover any factors influencing WOI displacement.

Conclusion

The results of the study showed no significant difference in pregnancy outcomes in patients who received ERA compared to those who did not.

Exploring the effectiveness of endometrial receptivity array and immune profiling in patients with multiple implantation failure：A retrospective cohort study based on propensity score matching

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA), endometrial immune profiling, and a combination of both in improving the pregnancy outcomes for multiple implantation failure patients. According to patients' willingness, 1429 women who incurred at least two or more consecutive implantation failures in IVF/ICSI treatment opted for frozen embryo transfer and were divided into four groups: 'No test', 'Immune Profiling', 'ERA' and 'ERA+ Immune Profiling'. Women in three test groups underwent timed endometrial biopsy for ERA, immune profiling, a combination of both. We observed the overall incidence rates of the displaced window of implantation (WOI) and endometrial immune dysregulation were 75.14% and 79.29%, respectively. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), our data revealed that the 'ERA' and 'ERA + Immune Profiling' groups demonstrated significantly higher rates of biochemical, clinical, ongoing pregnancy, and implantation compared to the 'No test' group (p < 0.01). The 'Immune Profiling' group showed a higher implantation rate compared to 'No test' group (p < 0.05). Furthermore, when comparing three test groups, the 'ERA + Immune Profiling' group exhibited notably higher rates of clinical and ongoing pregnancy compared to the 'Immune Profiling' group (p < 0.017). However, there was no association between endometrial immune profiling and ERA phases, and their results did not differ between embryo implantation and non-implantation in these patients. Our findings underline the increased implantation rates by use of ERA and endometrial immune profiling in patients with multiple implantation failure, either individually or corporately. Moreover, a combination of both could improve their pregnancy outcomes significantly.

Analysis of predictors of clinical pregnancy and live birth in patients with RIF treated with IVF-ET technology: a cohort study based on a propensity score approach

Objective

To investigate the predictors of clinical pregnancy and live birth rate in patients with recurrent embryo implantation failure (RIF) treated with in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) technique.

Method

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Jinjiang District Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, China. Patients were recruited who were enrolled at this hospital between November 1, 2019 and August 31, 2022, and who met the following criteria: a frozen embryo transfer (FET) at day 5 or 6 blastocyst stage was performed and the number of transfer cycles was not less than two. We collected information on age, height, weight, number of embryo transfer cycles, and information related to clinical outcomes. We used the group of patients who underwent ERA testing as the study group and those who underwent FET only as the control group, and matched baseline characteristics between the two groups by propensity score to make them comparable. We compared the differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups and further explored predictors of pregnancy and live birth using survival analysis and COX regression modeling.

Results

The success rate of clinical pregnancy in RIF patients was 50.74% and the live birth rate was 33.09%. Patients in the FET group were less likely to achieve clinical pregnancy compared to the ERA group (HR = 0.788, 95%CI 0.593-0.978, p < 0.05). Patients with >3 previous implantation failures had a lower probability of achieving a clinical pregnancy (HR = 0.058, 95%CI 0.026-0.128, p < 0.05) and a lower likelihood of a live birth (HR = 0.055, 95%CI 0.019-0.160, p < 0.05), compared to patients with ≤3 previous implantation failures. Patients who had two embryos transferred were more likely to achieve a clinical pregnancy (HR = 1.357, 95%CI 1.079-1.889, p < 0.05) and a higher likelihood of a live birth (HR = 1.845, 95%CI 1.170-2.910, p < 0.05) than patients who had a single embryo transfer. Patients with concomitant high-quality embryo transfer were more likely to achieve a clinical pregnancy compared to those without high-quality embryo transfer (HR = 1.917, 95%CI 1.225-1.863, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Not receiving an ERA, having >3 previous implantation failures, using single embryo transfer and not transferring quality embryos are predictors for clinical pregnancy in patients with RIF. Having>3 previous implantation failures and using single embryo transfer were predictors for live birth in patients with RIF.

Factors affecting the ongoing pregnancy rate in women with repeated implantation failure undergoing an endometrial receptivity array

OBJECTIVE

In this retrospective study, we analyzed factors influencing the ongoing pregnancy rate (PR) in women with repeated implantation failure (RIF) undergoing embryo transfer with endometrial receptivity array (ERA).

METHODS

Eighty-three consecutive personalized embryo transfers (pETs) with ERA, from 54 women with RIF, were selected from June 2020 to April 2022. Vitrified blastocyst transfer was timed based on ERA results.

RESULTS

The ongoing PR per pET was 33.7%. Using ERA, the endometrium was identified as pre-receptive in 26 cycles, early receptive in 25 cycles, receptive in 31 cycles, and late receptive in one cycle. With cycles categorized into three receptivity phases (pre-receptive, early receptive, or receptive), no significant differences were found in the clinical PR (27.3%, 55.6%, and 40%, respectively) or ongoing PR (9.1%, 55.6%, and 40%, respectively) after a single blastocyst transfer. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the clinical PR or ongoing PR after the transfer of two or more blastocysts. Among women with ongoing pregnancy relative to those without, age at first pET was significantly lower (35 years vs. 39 years, p=0.001), while blastocyst score (23 vs. 18, p=0.012) and the proportion of blastocyst scores >18 (71.4% vs. 38.9%, p=0.005) were significantly higher. In multiple logistic regression analysis, the woman's age (odds ratio [OR], 0.814; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.706 to 0.940; p=0.005) and blastocyst score >18 (OR, 3.052; 95% CI, 1.075 to 8.665; p=0.036) were identified as significant factors influencing ongoing pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

In pET with ERA, ongoing pregnancy was closely associated with woman's age and blastocyst quality.

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.

Personalized versus standard frozen-thawed embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate whether personalized embryo transfer (pET) protocol guided by an endometrial receptivity array (ERA) can improve clinical outcomes of assisted reproduction.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library for studies in which analytical comparisons of outcomes of pET and standard embryo transfer (sET) groups were undertaken. The references to the included studies were also manually searched. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and the secondary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR), human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) positivity, biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR), miscarriage rate (MR), implantation rate (IR), and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR).

RESULTS

Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis, including one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and nine cohort studies. We observed no significant difference in the primary outcome of CPR between the pET and sET groups in unselected patients (RR = 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.30; P = 0.53; I2 = 89%). In terms of secondary outcomes, we likewise noted no significant differences between the groups. Further subgroup analyses indicated that the pET protocol not only significantly reduced the MR for poor-prognosis patients, but it also reduced the CPR in donor cycles, elevated the BPR for good-prognosis patients, non-preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), and programmed cycles, and decreased the proportion of women showing HCG positivity in non-PGT cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed that ERA appears to possess limited guidance in embryo transfer. More high-quality RCTs are therefore needed to investigate the clinical validity and feasibility of ERA in the future.

Endometrial receptivity array before frozen embryo transfer cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of endometrial receptivity array (ERA) before frozen embryo transfer in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). There is a lack of consensus regarding the use of ERA for increasing the success rate of IVF cycles, mainly in terms of the live birth rate.

DESIGN

PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched from inception up to February 15, 2022.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Patients undergoing ERA vs no ERA before frozen embryo transfer.

INTERVENTION(S)

Only comparative studies evaluating pregnancy rates of patients undergoing frozen embryo transfer cycles with or without prior ERA were included. Inter-study heterogeneity was also assessed using Cochrane's Q test and the I² statistic. The random-effects model was used to pool the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the impact of ERA on pregnancy rates according to the number of previous embryo transfer (ET) failures (≤ 2 previous failed ETs vs. > 2 failed ETs, defined as recurrent implantation failure). Separate analyses were performed according to the study design and adjustment for confounders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES(S)

The primary outcomes of the study were live birth rate and/or ongoing pregnancy rate. Implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and miscarriage rate were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULT(S)

Eight studies (representing data on n = 2,784 patients; n = 831 had undergone ERA and n = 1,953 without ERA) were found to be eligible for this meta-analysis. The live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate for the ERA group was not significantly different compared with the non-ERA group (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.79-2.41; I² 83.0%), nor was a difference seen in subgroup analyses based on the number of previous failed ETs. The rates of implantation, biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and miscarriage were also comparable between the ERA and the non-ERA groups. After separate analyses according to the study design and adjustment for confounding factors, overall pooled estimates remained statistically nonsignificant.

CONCLUSION(S)

The findings of the current meta-analysis did not reveal a significant change in the rate of pregnancy after IVF cycles using ERA, and it is not clear whether ERA can increase the pregnancy rate or not.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022310862).

Commercially Available Molecular Approaches to Evaluate Endometrial Receptivity: A Systematic Review and Critical Analysis of the Literature

Despite the advances in the field of reproductive medicine, implantation failure represents a challenging condition affecting 10-30% of patients subjected to in vitro fertilization (IVF). Research has focused on the identification of molecules playing crucial roles in endometrial receptivity, with the aim of designing predictive tools for efficient detection of the implantation window. To that end, novel molecular genomic and transcriptomic approaches have been introduced as promising tools to enable personalized approaches with the aim of optimizing embryo transfer dating. However, the clinical value of these approaches remains unclear. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic review and critical analysis of the existing evidence regarding the employment of commercially available novel approaches to evaluate endometrial receptivity. An Embase and PubMed/Medline search was performed on 1 February 2022. From the 475 articles yielded, only 27 were included and analyzed. The considerable heterogeneity of the included articles indicates the uniqueness of the implantation window, showcasing that the optimal time for embryo transfer varies significantly between women. Moreover, this study provides information regarding the technical aspects of these advanced molecular tools, as well as an analysis of novel possible biomarkers for endometrial receptivity, providing a basis for future research in the field.

Deciphering the endometrial immune landscape of RIF during the window of implantation from cellular senescence by integrated bioinformatics analysis and machine learning

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is an extremely thorny issue in in-vitro fertilization (IVF)-embryo transfer (ET). However, its intricate etiology and pathological mechanisms are still unclear. Nowadays, there has been extensive interest in cellular senescence in RIF, and its involvement in endometrial immune characteristics during the window of implantation (WOI) has captured scholars' growing concerns. Therefore, this study aims to probe into the pathological mechanism of RIF from cellular senescence and investigate the correlation between cellular senescence and endometrial immune characteristics during WOI based on bioinformatics combined with machine learning strategy, so as to elucidate the underlying pathological mechanisms of RIF and to explore novel treatment strategies for RIF. Firstly, the gene sets of GSE26787 and GSE111974 from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database were included for the weighted gene correlation network analysis (WGCNA), from which we concluded that the genes of the core module were closely related to cell fate decision and immune regulation. Subsequently, we identified 25 cellular senescence-associated differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in RIF by intersecting DEGs with cellular senescence-associated genes from the Cell Senescence (CellAge) database. Moreover, functional enrichment analysis was conducted to further reveal the specific molecular mechanisms by which these molecules regulate cellular senescence and immune pathways. Then, eight signature genes were determined by the machine learning method of support vector machine-recursive feature elimination (SVM-RFE), random forest (RF), and artificial neural network (ANN), comprising LATS1, EHF, DUSP16, ADCK5, PATZ1, DEK, MAP2K1, and ETS2, which were also validated in the testing gene set (GSE106602). Furthermore, distinct immune microenvironment abnormalities in the RIF endometrium during WOI were comprehensively explored and validated in GSE106602, including infiltrating immunocytes, immune function, and the expression profiling of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes and immune checkpoint genes. Moreover, the correlation between the eight signature genes with the endometrial immune landscape of RIF was also evaluated. After that, two distinct subtypes with significantly distinct immune infiltration characteristics were identified by consensus clustering analysis based on the eight signature genes. Finally, a "KEGG pathway-RIF signature genes-immune landscape" association network was constructed to intuitively uncover their connection. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that cellular senescence might play a pushing role in the pathological mechanism of RIF, which might be closely related to its impact on the immune microenvironment during the WOI phase. The exploration of the molecular mechanism of cellular senescence in RIF is expected to bring new breakthroughs for disease diagnosis and treatment strategies.

The RNA-seq based endometrial receptivity test (rsERT) compared to pinopode: A better diagnostic tool for endometrial receptivity for patients with recurrent implantation failure in Chinese population

Displaced window of implantation (WOI) is one of the endometrial origins that accounts for implantation failure, especially for patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF), yet no standard diagnostic tool has been recognized. The study consists of two parts, aiming to compare the concordance and efficacy of the diagnostic tools, the newly developed RNA-seq based endometrial receptivity test (rsERT) to the conventional pinopode, in diagnosing WOI and guiding personalized embryo transfer (pET). With the same group of RIF patients, the rsERT diagnosed 32 patients (65.31%) with normal WOIs, and most of the displacements were advancements (30.61%). While according to pinopode, only 14 patients (28.57%) were found with normal WOIs, and most patients (63.27%) presented delayed growth patterns. After conducting pET, patients in the rsERT group had higher successful pregnancy rates while requiring fewer ET cycles (50.00% vs. 16.67%, p=0.001). The study proved poor consistency between the diagnostic tools of endometrial receptivity based on cellular structure and gene profiling, and it supported rsERT as a reliable tool with potential clinical value.