| Literature DB >> 26777262 |
Nathalie Lédée1,2,3, Marie Petitbarat1, Lucie Chevrier1, Dominique Vitoux4, Katia Vezmar1, Mona Rahmati2,3, Sylvie Dubanchet2,3, Hanne Gahéry2,3, Armand Bensussan2,3, Gerard Chaouat2,3.
Abstract
LABELED PROBLEM: Embryo implantation remains the main limiting factor in assisted reproductive medicine (20% success rate). METHODS OF STUDY: An endometrial immune profiling was performed among 394 women with the previous history of repeated embryo implantation failures (RIF). The endometrial immune profile documented the ratio of IL-15/Fn-14 mRNA as a biomarker of uNK cell activation/maturation (together with the uNK cell count) and the IL-18/TWEAK mRNA ratio as a biomarker of both angiogenesis and the Th1/Th2 balance. According to their profile, we recommended personalized care to counteract the documented dysregulation and assessed its effects by the live birth rate (LBR) for the next embryo transfer.Entities:
Keywords: Birth rates; Immunology; Implantation failure; human endometrium; in vitro fertilization; uterine natural killer cells; uterine receptivity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26777262 PMCID: PMC4849202 DOI: 10.1111/aji.12483
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Reprod Immunol ISSN: 1046-7408 Impact factor: 3.886
Figure 1Focus on IL15 and IL18 environment during the implantation window. In the mid‐luteal phase, stromal and endothelial endometrial cells secrete IL‐15, Fn‐14, IL‐18, and TWEAK at specific levels. Increased IL‐15 allows the recruitment and maturation of uNK cells. IL‐18 and mature uNK cells stimulate Th2 cytokine production and lead to a predominantly Th2 balance. This equilibrium promotes immunotrophism and angiogenesis, while inhibiting inflammatory and cytotoxic pathways.
Figure 2Study design. The study was conducted by three sets of contributors. MatriceLab Innove (MLI) designed the study, performed the endometrial immune profile (with its molecular analyses and CD56+ cell count), suggested personalized care, and remained in contact with physicians to follow‐up each IVF/ICSI attempt. Physicians recruited patients, performed the endometrial biopsies, and provided the personalized care before and after performing the IVF/ICSI. The Centre de pathologie (Passy, France) conducted the histological dating of the biopsies and the CD56 immunohistochemistry (IHC).
Comparison of Endometrial Biomarkers in Control and RIF Subgroups According to Their Immune Profiles
| Immune endometrial profile | Control group | RIF group | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Over activation |
| Low activation |
| Nodysregulation |
| ||
| Biomarkers | Number of patient | 26 | 223 (56.6%) | 99 (25%) | 72 (18.3%) | |||
| IL‐18/TWEAK | Range of interpretation | 0.03–0.12 | >0.12 | <0.03 | 0.03–0.12 | |||
| Mean | 0.076 | 0.40 | 0.046 | 0.045 | 0.002 | 0.07 | 0.33 | |
| IL‐15/Fn‐14 | Range of interpretation | 0.3–3 | >3 | <0.3 | 0.3–3 | |||
| Mean | 1.2 | 2.96 | 0.039 | 0.47 | <0.001 | 1.27 | 0.75 | |
| CD56+ cells count | Range of interpretation | 10–100 | >100 | <10 | 10–100 | |||
| Mean | 45 | 49 | 0.64 | 32 | 0.009 | 42 | 0.46 | |
Norms for each biomarker were determined from a cohort of 26 fertile women. Data for each RIF subgroup were compared to data for the control group and analyzed with anova. A p‐value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
* = P < 0.05, ** = P < 0.01, *** = P < 0.001.
Figure 3Distribution of the ratios of IL‐15/Fn‐14 mRNA and IL‐18/TWEAK mRNA and of the CD56+ cell count in the control fertile group and in the RIF cohort. Figure 3 presents the data dispersion for the log‐transformed IL‐15/Fn‐14 mRNA ratio, log‐transformed IL‐18/TWEAK mRNA ratio, and log‐transformed CD56+ cell count in the fertile control group and in the RIF cohort.
History, Immune Diagnosis, and Outcome at the Next Embryo Transfer in the RIF Cohort of 394 Patients
| Immune endometrial diagnosis in the RIF cohort | Over immune endometrial activation | Low immune endometrial activation | No immune dysregulation |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of RIF patients | 223 (56.6%) | 99 (25%) | 72 (18.3%) | |
| Mean age (years) | 36.6 | 37.1 | 37 | 0.24 |
| Number of previous attempt | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 0.29 |
| Years of infertility | 6.3 | 6.5 | 6.7 | 0.50 |
| Number of embryos previously transferred | 8.8 | 8.8 | 9.1 | 0.89 |
| Implantation rate (3 weeks) | 29% | 36% | 19% | 0.01 |
| Implantation rate (10 weeks) | 24.7% | 32% | 15% | 0.009 |
| Clinical PR at the first following ET (3 weeks) | 47.1% (105/223) | 55.6% (56/99) | 30.6% (22/72) | 0.005 |
| Ongoing PR at the first following ET (10 weeks) | 37.7% (84/223) | 48.5% (48/99) | 20.8% (15/72) | 0.001 |
| LBR at the first following ET |
|
| 19.4% (14/72) | 0.001 |
| Early miscarriage rates | 9% (21/223) | 8% (8/99) | 9.7% (7/72) | 0.42 |
RIF, Repeated embryo Implantation Failures; PR, Pregnancy Rate; ET, Embryo Transfer.
A P‐value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Figure 4Personalization of treatment according to the endometrial immune profile. This figure summarizes the personalization of care recommended according to the uterine immune profile in the groups with low immune activation, over immune activation, and with or without immature uNK cells.
Figure 5Adaptation of therapy in patients with an overactivated immune profile. Forty‐one women with an overactivated immune profile were first treated with prednisolone or Intralipid® and had another biopsy during the treatment to evaluate its effects on their immune profile. Patients responsive to prednisolone (18 cases) or Intralipid® (six cases) underwent ET with the same treatment in the following cycle. Treatment for women not responsive to prednisolone was changed to Intralipid®, and ET took place under Intralipid®. Inversely, treatment for women unresponsive to Intralipid® was changed to prednisolone, and ET took place under prednisolone.
Comparison of Immune Biomarkers Before and After Treatment in Women with Endometrial Immune Overactivation, According to Response to Treatment
| Number of patients | Initial evaluation | Second evaluation |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Immune profiling for responsive patients | ||||
| CD56 cells count (10–100) | 24 | 50 | 43 | 0.82 |
| IL‐18/TWEAK (0.03–0.11) | 24 |
|
|
|
| IL‐15/Fn‐14 (0.3–3) | 24 | 1.23 | 0.75 | 0.11 |
| Immune profiling for non‐responsive patients | ||||
| CD56 cells count (10–100) | 17 | 51 | 47 | 0.85 |
| IL‐18/TWEAK (0.03–0.11) | 17 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.16 |
| IL‐15/Fn‐14 (0.3–3) | 17 | 1.97 | 2.74 | 0.33 |
In 24 responsive patients, the overactivated immune profile was normalized under therapy (prednisolone or Intralipid®), and the IL‐18/TWEAK mRNA ratio decreased significantly (bold value). In 17 non‐responsive women (prednisolone or Intralipid®), the overactivated profile was not normalized, and the biomarkers did not change significantly. Data were analyzed with a nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test. A P‐value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Detailed Outcome of Women with RIF Patient and an Overactivated Immune Profile under Prednisolone and Intralipid® Treatment
| Therapy | Predisolone | Intralipid® |
|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 184 | 39 |
| Clinical PR at the first following ET (3 weeks) | 46.2% (85/184) | 51.3% (20/39) |
| Ongoing PR at the first following ET (10 weeks) | 35.9% (66/184) | 46.2% (18/39) |
| LBR at the first following ET | 35.3% (65/184) | 43.6% (17/39) |
| Early miscarriage rate | 10.3% (19/184) | 5.1% (2/39) |
RIF, Repeated embryo Implantation Failures; PR, Pregnancy Rate; ET, Embryo Transfer.