English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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 I 2  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, I 2  = 0.0%,  n  = 410; frozen RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.14–1.81, I 2  = 0.0.%,  n  = 366), and for both subcutaneous injection and intrauterine infusion (subcutaneous RR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.33–2.23, I 2  = 0.0%,  n  = 497; intrauterine RR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.09–1.78, I 2  = 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; I 2  = 20.1%,  n  = 469). There were no significant differences in the miscarriage rate (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.25–5.21: I 2  = 63.2%,  n  = 472) and live birth rate (RR: 1.43, 95% CI: 0.86–2.36; I 2  = 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.

reproductive biology and endocrinology

What is the impact of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in subcutaneous injection or intrauterine infusion and during both the fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles on recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis?