Zhijin Hou1, Fangjie Jiang1, Jie Yang1, Yang Liu1, Hao Zha1, Xiaoling Yang1, Jia Bie1, Yushi Meng2. 1. Department of Reproductive Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, NO.374 Dianmian Road, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan Province, China. 2. Department of Reproductive Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, NO.374 Dianmian Road, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan Province, China. mengyushi0102@163.com.
Abstract
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.
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.