Endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant for subfertile women in assisted reproduction.

Despite substantial improvements in the success of assisted reproduction techniques (ART), live birth rates may remain consistently low, and practitioners may look for innovative treatments to improve the outcomes. The injection of embryo culture supernatant in the endometrial cavity can be undertaken at various time intervals before embryo transfer. It provides an altered endometrial environment through the secretion of factors considered to facilitate implantation. It is proposed that injection of the supernatant into the endometrial cavity prior to embryo transfer will stimulate the endometrium and provide better conditions for implantation to take place. An increased implantation rate would subsequently increase rates of clinical pregnancy and live birth, but current robust evidence on the efficacy of injected embryo culture supernatant is lacking. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART. Our search strategies were designed with the help of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Information Specialist. We sought to identify all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) meeting inclusion criteria. Searches were performed on 2 December 2019. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, trials registries and grey literature. We made further searches in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) fertility assessment and treatment guidelines. We handsearched reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and RCTs, together with searches of PubMed and Google for any recent trials that have not yet been indexed in the major databases. We had no language or location restrictions. We included RCTs testing the use of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer during an ART cycle, compared with the non-use of this intervention, the use of placebo or the use of any other similar drug. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data from studies and attempted to contact the authors where data were missing. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model. Our primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and miscarriage. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We assessed evidence quality using GRADE methods. We found five RCTs suitable for inclusion in the review (526 women analysed). We made two comparisons: embryo culture supernatant use versus standard care or no intervention; and embryo culture supernatant use versus culture medium. All studies were published as full-text articles. Data derived from the reports or through direct communication with investigators were available for the final meta-analysis performed. The GRADE evidence quality of studies ranged from very low-quality to moderate-quality. Factors reducing evidence quality included high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, unclear risk of publication bias and selective outcome reporting, serious inconsistency among study outcomes, and serious imprecision due to wide confidence intervals (CIs) and low numbers of events. Comparison 1. Endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer versus standard care or no intervention: One study reported live birth only and two reported the composite outcome live birth and ongoing pregnancy. We are uncertain whether endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer during an ART cycle improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to no intervention (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.70; 3 RCTs; n = 340, I2 = 84%; very low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 42%, the chance following the endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer would vary between 22% and 81%. We are also uncertain whether the endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant could decrease miscarriage rates, compared to no intervention (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.78, 4 RCTs, n = 430, I2 = 58%, very low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of miscarriage following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 9%, the chance following injection of embryo culture supernatant would vary between 3% and 30%. Concerning the secondary outcomes, we are uncertain whether the injection of embryo culture supernatant prior to embryo transfer could increase clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.61; 5 RCTs; n = 526, I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence), decrease ectopic pregnancy rates (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.24; n = 250; 2 RCTs; I2 = 41%; very low-quality evidence), decrease multiple pregnancy rates (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.83; 2 RCTs; n = 150; I2 = 63%; very low-quality evidence), or decrease preterm delivery rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.42; 1 RCT; n = 90; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence), compared to no intervention. Finally, there may have been little or no difference in foetal abnormality rates between the two groups (OR 3.10, 95% CI 0.12 to 79.23; 1 RCT; n = 60; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Comparison 2. Endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant versus endometrial injection of culture medium before embryo transfer We are uncertain whether the use of embryo culture supernatant improves clinical pregnancy rates, compared to the use of culture medium (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.46; n = 96; 1 RCT; very low-quality evidence). No study reported live birth/ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic or multiple pregnancy, preterm delivery or foetal abnormalities. We are uncertain whether the addition of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer as a routine method for the treatment of women undergoing ART can improve pregnancy outcomes. This conclusion is based on current available data from five RCTs, with evidence quality ranging from very low to moderate across studies. Further large well-designed RCTs reporting on live births and adverse clinical outcomes are still required to clarify the exact role of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer.

Siristatidis CS ，Sertedaki E ，Karageorgiou V ，Vaidakis D ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Metabolomics for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies.

Siristatidis CS ，Sertedaki E ，Vaidakis D ，Varounis C ，Trivella M ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Metabolomics for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies.

Siristatidis CS ，Sertedaki E ，Vaidakis D 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

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》

Autologous platelet-rich plasma for assisted reproduction.

Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) consists of plasma and a concentrate of platelets extracted from fresh whole blood of the person being treated. Research has suggested that intrauterine or intraovarian infusion/injection of PRP before embryo transfer may improve endometrial receptivity and response to ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproduction. We compared these interventions to standard treatment, placebo, or other interventions (mechanical or pharmacological). To assess the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine and intraovarian infusion/injection of platelet-rich plasma in infertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology cycles. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Epistemonikos database in January 2023. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the trial authors and experts in the field for any additional trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the application of PRP in the uterine cavity, ovaries, or both versus no intervention, placebo, or any other intervention (either mechanical or pharmacological) in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including use of the updated risk of bias tool (RoB 2). The primary outcomes were live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) and miscarriage. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, complications of the procedure, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, preterm delivery, and fetal abnormality. We estimated the average effect of the interventions by fitting a Der Simonian-Laird's random-effects meta-analysis model. We reported pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We restricted the primary analyses to trials at low risk of bias for the outcomes and performed sensitivity analyses that included all studies. We included 12 parallel-group RCTs that recruited a total of 1069 women. We identified three different comparison groups. Using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for almost all outcomes. Intrauterine injection/infusion of platelet-rich plasma versus no intervention or placebo Nine studies evaluated intrauterine PRP versus no intervention or placebo. Eight included women with at least two or three previous implantation failures. Only one was assessed at low risk of bias for each outcome. This study provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP injection versus no intervention on live birth (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.14; 94 women) and miscarriage (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.09; 94 women). If the likelihood of live birth following no intervention is assumed to be 17%, then the likelihood following intrauterine PRP would be 7% to 40%; and if the risk of miscarriage following no intervention is 4%, then the risk following intrauterine PRP would be 1% to 24%. When we analyzed all studies (regardless of risk of bias), we found very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with placebo or no intervention on live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.86; I² = 54%; 6 studies, 564 women) and miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.01; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 504 women). The study at low risk of bias provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with no intervention on clinical pregnancy (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.76; 94 women) and ectopic pregnancy (OR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.95; 94 women). The synthesis of all studies provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with placebo or no intervention on clinical pregnancy (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.50 to 3.27; I² = 24%; 9 studies, 824 women), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.68, 95% CI 0.81 to 8.88; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 240 women), and ectopic pregnancy (OR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.95; 1 study, 94 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intrauterine infusion of PRP may increase the risk of preterm delivery compared with no intervention (OR 8.02, 95% CI 1.72 to 37.33; 1 study, 120 women; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported pain, infection, allergic reaction, fetal growth restriction, or fetal abnormality. Intrauterine infusion of platelet-rich plasma versus intrauterine infusion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor Two RCTs evaluated intrauterine PRP versus intrauterine granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF); both included women with thin endometrium, and neither was judged at low risk of bias for any outcome. We are uncertain about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with intrauterine G-CSF on live birth (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.81; 1 study, 132 women; very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage (OR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.96; 1 study, 132 women; very low-certainty evidence), and clinical pregnancy (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.35; 2 studies, 172 women; very low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported adverse outcomes other than miscarriage. Intraovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma versus no intervention One RCT evaluated PRP injection into both ovaries versus no intervention; it was judged at high risk of bias for the two outcomes it reported. We are uncertain about the effect of intraovarian PRP injection compared with no intervention on ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.63; 73 women; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.60; 73 women; very low-certainty evidence). The study examined no safety outcomes. We are uncertain about the effect of intrauterine or intraovarian administration of PRP on outcomes of assisted reproduction technology in infertile women. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution. Only one of the 12 included studies was judged at low risk of bias. Other limitations of the included trials were failure to report live birth, poor reporting of methods, lack of prospective protocol registration, low precision due to the small number of enrolled participants, indirectness due to the specific subpopulations and settings studied, and insufficient or absent safety data.

Vaidakis D ，Papapanou M ，Siristatidis CS 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》