Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.
Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) seems to play an important role in the process of embryo implantation and continuation of pregnancy. It has been used during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for subfertile women with chronically thin endometrium and those with previous multiple IVF failures. It is currently unknown whether G-CSF is effective in improving results following assisted reproductive technology (ART).
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of G-CSF in women undergoing ART.
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in February 2019. We searched reference lists of relevant articles and handsearched relevant conference proceedings.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing G-CSF administration versus no treatment or placebo in subfertile women undergoing IVF treatment.
Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live-birth rate and miscarriage rate following G-CSF administration. We have reported ongoing pregnancy rate in cases where studies did not report live birth but reported ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, adverse events, ectopic pregnancy rate, small for gestational age at birth, abnormally adherent placenta, and congenital anomaly rate. We analysed data using risk ratio (RR), Peto odds ratio and a fixed-effect model. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria.
We included 15 trials involving 622 women who received G-CSF and 631 women who received placebo or no additional treatment during IVF. The main limitations in the quality of the evidence were inadequate reporting of study methods and high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. We assessed only two of the 15 included trials as at a low risk of bias. None of the trials reported the primary effectiveness outcome of live-birth rate. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves ongoing pregnancy rate compared to control in subfertile women undergoing ART (RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 2.42; 2 RCTs; participants = 263; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with 14% ongoing pregnancy rate, G-CSF administration would be expected to result in ongoing pregnancy rates between 12% and 35%. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration reduces miscarriage rate (Peto odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.83; 3 RCTs; participants = 391; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence) compared to the control group in subfertile women undergoing ART. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves overall clinical pregnancy rate compared to control in subfertile women undergoing ART (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.01; 14 RCTs; participants = 1253; I² = 13%; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with 17% clinical pregnancy rate, G-CSF administration would be expected to result in clinical pregnancy rates between 23% and 35%. In the unselected IVF population, we are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves clinical pregnancy rate compared to the control group (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.60; 3 RCTs; participants = 404; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). G-CSF administration may improve clinical pregnancy rate in women with two or more previous IVF failures compared to the control group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.85; 7 RCTs; participants = 643; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). In subfertile women with thin endometrium undergoing ART, we are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves clinical pregnancy rate compared to the control group (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.63; 4 RCTs; participants = 206; I² = 30%; low-quality evidence). No study reported on multiple pregnancy rate. Only four trials reported adverse events as an outcome, and none of them reported any major adverse events following either G-CSF administration or placebo/no treatment.
In subfertile women undergoing ART, we are uncertain whether the administration of G-CSF improves ongoing pregnancy or overall clinical pregnancy rates or reduces miscarriage rate compared to no treatment or placebo, whether in all women or those with thin endometrium, based on very low-quality evidence. Low-quality evidence suggests that G-CSF administration may improve clinical pregnancy rate in women with two or more IVF failures, but the included studies had unclear allocation concealment or were at high risk of performance bias.
Kamath MS
，Kirubakaran R
，Sunkara SK
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.
Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear.
To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI).
The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree.
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.
We included 23 RCTs (4035 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Higher versus lower degree of intentional endometrial injury Evidence was insufficient to show whether there is a difference in ongoing pregnancy rates (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; 1 RCT, 332 participants; low-quality evidence) between hysteroscopy with endometrial injury and hysteroscopy alone. Evidence suggests that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy with hysteroscopy alone is 10%, then the chance with hysteroscopy with endometrial injury would be 7% to 24%. This study did not report the primary outcomes of live birth and pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence).
Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.
Bui BN
，Lensen SF
，Gibreel A
，Martins WP
，Torrance H
，Broekmans FJ
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
