Assisted Reproduction Add-Ons and Adjuncts

Interventions for recurrent embryo implantation failure: An umbrella review

Almohammadi A, Choucair F, Khan KS, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Cano-Ibáñez N

Published May 2025 International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
DOI 10.1002/ijgo.16066 PMID 39636199 PMC PMC12011071

RRM Academy Synopsis

Some implantation failure interventions show gains in meta-analyses

Meta-analyses of several interventions for recurrent implantation failure report improved clinical pregnancy rates. An umbrella review of 47 systematic reviews found this. Reviewers rated 41 of the 47 reviews as low or critically low quality.

Key Findings

  • The 47 systematic reviews covered 375 randomized trials and 98 meta-analyses. AMSTAR 2 appraised 41 (88%) as critically low or low quality and 6 (12%) as moderate or high.
  • Statistically significant improvement in clinical pregnancy rate appeared in 13/14 (93%) granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), 6/6 (100%) intralipid, 8/9 (88%) peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) and 10/11 (91%) platelet-rich plasma (PRP) meta-analyses.
  • Statistically significant improvement in live birth rate appeared in 1/7 (14%) G-CSF, 4/6 (66.6%) intralipid, 5/6 (83.33%) PBMC, 5/7 (71.42%) PRP and 3/7 (42.86%) intentional endometrial injury meta-analyses.
  • GRADE strength was high-moderate in 36 and low-critically low in 23 clinical pregnancy meta-analyses. For live birth, 17 were high or moderate and 22 were low or critically low.

Interpretation

The umbrella review summarizes systematic reviews of randomized trials, searched through March 2024. The authors counted meta-analyses with a statistically significant improvement. They did not pool the trials again. The reviews often overlapped in the trials they included (median 33.3%). The authors note that repeated inclusion of the same trials may amplify the influence of certain studies. They conclude that several interventions could potentially enhance management, and that varying definitions of recurrent implantation failure place provisos on that conclusion. They call for more rigorously designed primary studies.

RRM Context

Recurrent implantation failure means repeated unsuccessful embryo transfers in IVF. IVF bypasses the question of why conception does not happen. The interventions in this review were proposed for patients after transfers failed. Restorative reproductive medicine starts from that question and evaluates both partners for the cause before treatment.

Abstract

Background

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) has a multifactorial etiology. An umbrella review was undertaken to evaluate the multiple proposed interventions.

Objectives

To summarize and assess the strength of evidence of interventions for RIF from published systematic reviews (SR) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Search Strategy

After prospective registration (PROSPERO CRD42023414255), a systematic search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, Scopus and Medline from inception until March 2024.

Selection Criteria

SRs of RCTs, with or without meta-analyses (MA), were included if they reported clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) or live birth rates (LBR).

Data Collection and Analysis

The methodological quality of the included SRs was appraised independently in duplicate using the AMSTAR 2 tool. For each intervention, the MAs of RCTs with statistically significant improvements were counted as a percentage of the total assessing the strength of evidence using the GRADE system.

Main Results

A total of 47 SRs were included: 32 reviews covered immunomodulatory interventions, 10 (68 RCTs) covered uterine and endometrial interventions, one covered antibiotics, and four (69 RCTs) addressed mixed approaches, including laboratory interventions. AMSTAR 2 appraised 41 (88%) SRs as critically low or low, and 6 (12%) as moderate or high in quality. The SRs often had a level of overlap of RCTs (median 33.3%), inconsistent definitions of RIF, and varied comparisons for the interventions. Considering the significant meta-analytic evidence of high-moderate GRADE strength: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) showed improvement in CPR in 9/13 (69.2%) MAs and LBR in 1/7 (14%); intralipid infusion showed improvement in CPR in 4/6 (57.14%) MAs and LBR in 3/4 (75%); peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) showed improvement in CPR in 4/8 (50%) MAs and LBR 3/5 (60%); platelet-rich plasma (PRP) intervention showed improvement in CPR in 6/10 (60%) MAs and LBR in 1/5 (20%); human chorionic gonadotropins showed improvement in CPR in 3/3 (100%) MAs; growth hormone showed improvement in CPR in 1/1 (100%) MA; low molecular weight heparin showed improvement in CPR in 1/1 (100%) MAs and LBR in 1/2 (50%); hysteroscopy showed improvement in CPR in 1/2 (50%) MAs; and, intentional endometrial injury showed improvement in CPR in 3/4 (75%) MAs and LBR in 2/3 (66.66%).

Conclusions

Evidence syntheses of RCTs evaluating interventions for RIF suggest a consistent direction, with high to moderate strength, indicating that immunomodulatory treatments, including G-CSF, PBMC, PRP, intralipid infusion, and intentional endometrial injury are likely to be effective. However, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution due to the generally low methodological quality of the included studies and the clinical heterogeneity observed in most SRs.

Topics

By this author

Related research

Assisted Reproduction › Add-Ons and Adjuncts › Adjunct Evidence Base · Research Methods › Evidence Synthesis › Systematic Reviews · Genetics and Immunology › Reproductive Immunology › Implantation Immunology
Abdulla Almohammadi, Fadi Choucair, Khalid S Khan, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas, Naomi Cano-Ibáñez
A Almohammadi, F Choucair, K Khan, A Bueno-Cavanillas, N Cano-Ibáñez
PMID 39636199 39636199 DOI 10.1002/ijgo.16066 10.1002/ijgo.16066 Almohammadi et al. 2025, Almohammadi 2025