Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor may improve pregnancy outcome in patients with history of unexplained recurrent implantation failure: An RCT

The value of G-CSF in women experienced at least one implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Despite the developments of in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocols, implantation failure remains a challenging problem, owing to the unbalance between the embryo, endometrium, and immune system interactions. Effective treatments are urgently required to improve successful implantation. Recently, many researchers have focused on granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to regulate immune response and embryo-endometrium cross-talk. However, previous studies have reported inconsistent findings on the efficacy of G-CSF therapy on implantation failure. The objective of this review was to further explore the effects of G-CSF according to administration dosage and timing among women who experienced at least one implantation failure.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials of G-CSF on implantation failure up to July 21, 2023. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the heterogeneity of the studies with the I2 index was analyzed.

Results

We identified a total of 2031 studies and finally included 10 studies in the systematic review and meta-analysis. G-CSF administration improved the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR), and live birth rate (LBR) in women with at least one implantation failure. Subgroup analyses showed that G-CSF treatment could exert good advantages in improving CPR [OR=2.49, 95%CI (1.56, 3.98), I2 = 0%], IR [OR=2.82, 95%CI (1.29, 6.15)], BPR [OR=3.30, 95%CI (1.42, 7.67)] and LBR [OR=3.16, 95%CI (1.61, 6.22), I2 = 0%] compared with the blank control group. However, compared with placebo controls, G-CSF showed beneficial effects on CPR [OR=1.71, 95%CI (1.04, 2.84), I2 = 38%] and IR [OR=2.01, 95%CI (1.29, 3.15), I2 = 24%], but not on LBR. In addition, >150μg of G-CSF treatment increased CPR [OR=2.22, 95%CI (1.47, 3.35), I2 = 0%], IR [OR=2.67, 95%CI (1.47, 4.82), I2 = 0%] and BPR [OR=2.02, 95%CI (1.17, 3.47), I2 = 22%], while ≤150μg of G-CSF treatment improved miscarriage rate (MR) [OR=0.14, 95%CI (0.05, 0.38), I2 = 0%] and LBR [OR=2.65, 95%CI (1.56, 4.51), I2 = 0%]. Moreover, G-CSF administration on the day of embryo transfer (ET) could increase CPR [OR=2.81, 95%CI (1.37, 5.75), I2 = 0%], but not on the day of ovum pick-up (OPU) or human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) injection.

Conclusion

G-CSF has a beneficial effect on pregnancy outcomes to some extent among women who experienced at least one implantation failure, and the administration dosage and timing influence the effect size.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447046.

Granulocyte colony stimulating factor versus human chorionic gonadotropin for recurrent implantation failure in intra cytoplasmic sperm injection: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Repeated implantation failure (RIF) is defined as the case whereby the transferred embryos fail to implant after several attempts of In vitro fertilization (IVF) which causes a profound impact on the quality of life and financial burden. Some clinical studies have confirmed that Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) can improve pregnancy outcomes and implantation rates. Hence, our study aims to compare the efficacy of G-CSF and HCG on pregnancy outcomes in RIF women who undergo intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

METHODS

This randomized, single-blinded study was conducted et al.-Azhar University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt, between 10^th October 2020 and 20^th December 2020. The study included 100 women aged 20-43 years old undergoing ICSI cycles, with a history of RIF. Patients were divided randomly into two groups: group (1): included 50 patients injected with 500 IU of intrauterine HCG on embryo transfer day, and group (2): Included 50 patients injected with G-CSF on the embryo transfer day.

RESULTS

In 100 RIF women, we found a significant improvement in pregnancy outcomes favoring G-CSF over HCG including implantation rate, chemical pregnancy, and clinical pregnancy (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0003, and P = 0.0006, respectively).

CONCLUSION

For the first time, we demonstrated a significant improvement in pregnancy outcomes favoring G-CSF over HCG in terms of implantation rate, chemical pregnancy, and clinical pregnancy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered on Pan African Clinical Trials Registry with the following number: PACTR202010482774275 and was approved on 2^nd October 2020.

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.

Interventions to optimize embryo transfer in women undergoing assisted conception: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Several interventions and techniques are suggested to improve the outcome of embryo transfer (ET) in assisted conception. However, there remains no consensus on the optimal practice, with high variations among fertility specialists.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aiming to identify effective interventions that could be introduced around the time of ET to improve reproductive outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL) from inception until March 2021 using a multi-stage search strategy of MeSH terms and keywords, and included all RCTs that evaluated an intervention in the 24-h period before/after ET in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Our primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate post-ET confirmed as viable pregnancy on ultrasound scan. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effect meta-analysis and reported using risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We explored publication bias and effect modifiers using subgroup analyses.

OUTCOMES

Our search yielded 3685 citations of which we included 188 RCTs (38 interventions, 59 530 participants) with a median sample size of 200 (range 26-1761). The quality of included RCTs was moderate with most showing a low risk of bias for randomization (118/188, 62.8%) and attrition (105/188, 55.8%) but there was a significant risk of publication bias (Egger's test P = 0.001). Performing ET with ultrasound guidance versus clinical touch (n = 24, RR 1.265, 95% CI 1.151-1.391, I2 = 38.53%), hyaluronic acid versus routine care (n = 9, RR 1.457, 95% CI 1.197-1.261, I2 = 46.48%) and the use of a soft versus hard catheter (n = 27, RR 1.122, 95% CI 1.028-1.224, I2 = 57.66%) led to higher clinical pregnancy rates. Other pharmacological add-ons also showed a beneficial effect including granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF: n = 4, RR 1.774, 95% CI 1.252-2.512, I2 = 0), Atosiban (n = 7, RR 1.493, 95% CI 1.184-1.882, I2 = 68.27%) and hCG (n = 17, RR 1.232, 95% CI 1.099-1.382, I2 = 57.76%). Bed rest following ET was associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy (n = 6, RR 0.857, 95% CI 0.741-0.991, I2 = 0.01%). Other commonly used interventions, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, prophylactic antibiotics, acupuncture and cervical mucus removal, did not show a significant benefit on reproductive outcomes. Our effect estimates for other important outcomes, including miscarriage and live birth, were limited by the varied reporting across included RCTs.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Using ultrasound guidance, soft catheters and hyaluronic acid at the time of ET appears to increase clinical pregnancy rates. The use of Atosiban, G-CSF and hCG showed a trend towards increased clinical pregnancy rate, but larger trials are required before adopting these interventions in clinical practice. Bed rest post-ET was associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy and should not be recommended.

Is there any difference between the obstetric and perinatal complications of pregnancy in patients with and without repeated implantation failure in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles?

Background

Repeated implantation failure (RIF) is the main challenge in assisted reproduction; the present study aimed to compare the obstetric and perinatal outcomes between RIF and control patients who experienced a successful pregnancy after fresh embryo transfer (ET) or frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles. Data were obtained from 1150 women experiencing embryo transfer(s), consisting of 720 fresh ET and 430 FET cycles, at the Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd, Iran. The 370 women, in total, reached chemical pregnancies and finally 321 cases in fresh ET (n=216) and FET (n=105) cycles with singleton deliveries divided into two groups of control and RIF according to the number of last implantation failures. Then, the rate of obstetric and prenatal complications was compared between two groups in fresh ET and FET cycles.

Results

The results showed a higher abortion rate in the RIF group compared to the control group in fresh and FET cycles. In the assessment of the data from the cases with singleton pregnancies in fresh and FET cycles, the results showed almost similar obstetric and perinatal complications in the patients of RIF and control groups. Although the rates of some complications like vaginal bleeding, PROM, preterm delivery, and NICU administration were higher in the RIF patients, these were not significant (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

There was some variation in the normal rates of obstetric and perinatal outcomes between RIF patients compared to control. But, it seems necessary to run studies on more patients to endorse this conclusion.

What is the impact of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in subcutaneous injection or intrauterine infusion and during both the fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles on recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis?

BACKGROUND

Among recurrent implantation failure (RIF) patients, the rate of successful implantation remains relatively low due to the complex etiology of the condition, including maternal, embryo and immune factors. Effective treatments are urgently needed to improve the outcomes of embryo transfer for RIF patients. In recent years, many researchers have focused on immunotherapy using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to regulate the immune environment. However, the study of the G-CSF for RIF patients has reached conflicting conclusions. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to further explore the effects of G-CSF according to embryo transfer cycle (fresh or frozen) and administration route (subcutaneous injection or intrauterine infusion) among RIF patients.

METHOD

The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for literature published from the initial to October 2020. The meta-analysis, random-effects model and heterogeneity of the studies with I² index were analyzed. Stata 15 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 684 studies were obtained through the databases mentioned above. Nine RCTs included 976 RIF patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis indicated that G-CSF improved the clinical pregnancy rate for both the fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles (fresh RR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.27-2.37, I² = 0.0%, n = 410; frozen RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.14-1.81, I² = 0.0.%, n = 366), and for both subcutaneous injection and intrauterine infusion (subcutaneous RR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.33-2.23, I² = 0.0%, n = 497; intrauterine RR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.09-1.78, I² = 0.0%, n = 479), but the biochemical pregnancy rate of the RIF group was also higher than that of the control group (RR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.28-2.68; I² = 20.1%, n = 469). There were no significant differences in the miscarriage rate (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.25-5.21: I² = 63.2%, n = 472) and live birth rate (RR: 1.43, 95% CI: 0.86-2.36; I² = 52.5%; n = 372) when a random-effects model was employed.

CONCLUSION

The administration of G-CSF via either subcutaneous injection or intrauterine infusion and during both the fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles for RIF patients can improve the clinical pregnancy rate. However, whether G-CSF is effective in improving livebirth rates of RIF patients is still uncertain, continued research on the utilization and effectiveness of G-CSF is recommended before G-CSF can be considered mainstream treatment for RIF patients.

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.