Immunomodulation for unexplained recurrent implantation failure: where are we now?

In brief: Immune dysfunction may contribute to or cause recurrent implantation failure. This article summarizes normal and pathologic immune responses at implantation and critically appraises currently used immunomodulatory therapies. Abstract: Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) may be defined as the absence of pregnancy despite the transfer of ≥3 good-quality blastocysts and is unexplained in up to 50% of cases. There are currently no effective treatments for patients with unexplained RIF. Since the maternal immune system is intricately involved in mediating endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation, both insufficient and excessive endometrial inflammatory responses during the window of implantation are proposed to lead to implantation failure. Recent strategies to improve conception rates in RIF patients have focused on modulating maternal immune responses at implantation, through either promoting or suppressing inflammation. Unfortunately, there are no validated, readily available diagnostic tests to confirm immune-mediated RIF. As such, immune therapies are often started empirically without robust evidence as to their efficacy. Like other chronic diseases, patient selection for immunomodulatory therapy is crucial, and personalized medicine for RIF patients is emerging. As the literature on the subject is heterogenous and rapidly evolving, we aim to summarize the potential efficacy, mechanisms of actions and side effects of select therapies for the practicing clinician.

Intravenous immunoglobulin use in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss.

PROBLEM: Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) affects up to 4% of couples attempting to conceive. RPL is unexplained in over 50% of cases and no effective treatments exist. Due to the immune system's pivotal role during implantation and pregnancy, immune-mediated RPL may be suspected and immunomodulatory treatments like intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) have been administered but remain controversial. The goal of our study was to evaluate our center's 6 year-outcomes and to develop a framework for IVIg use in RPL. METHOD OF THE STUDY: Retrospective, single-center cohort study. All patients having received IVIg for unexplained RPL at the McGill Reproductive Immunology Clinic (MRIC) from January 2014 to December 2020 were included if maternal age was <42 years, body mass index (BMI) < 35 kg/m2 , non-smoker and having had ≥3 consecutive RPL despite previous treatment with aspirin and progesterone. IVIg 0.6-0.8 g/kg was given prior to conception and monthly during pregnancy until 16-20 weeks' gestation. We compared IVIg treated patient's outcomes to a separate "natural history cohort". This cohort was composed of patients consulting at the McGill recurrent pregnancy loss clinic and the MRIC over a 2-year period (January 2020 to December 2021) with similar inclusion criteria as the treatment cohort but did not receive IVIg or other immunomodulatory treatments. The association of IVIg with outcomes (compared to no IVIg) was evaluated among the groups of patients with primary RPL and secondary RPL. The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR), secondary outcomes included IVIg safety, obstetrical, and neonatal complications. RESULTS: Among 169 patients with unexplained RPL that were included in the study, 111 had primary RPL (38 exposed to IVIg and 83 controls) and 58 had secondary RPL (nine exposed to IVIG and 49 controls). Among patients with primary RPL (n = 111), the LBR was 64.3% (18/28) among patient exposed to IVIg compared to 43.4% (36/83) in controls (p = 0.079); regression analysis adjusting for BMI and number of previous miscarriages showed benefit favoring the use of IVIg (OR = 3.27, CI 95% (1.15-10.2), p = 0.03) when evaluating for live birth. In the subgroup of patients with ≥5 previous RPL and primary RPL (n = 31), IVIg was associated with higher LBR compared to control (10/15 (66.7%) vs. 3/16 (18.8%); p = 0.0113) but not the in the sub-group of patients with <5 miscarriages and primary RPL (8/13 (61.5%) vs. 33/67 (49.3%); p = 0.548). IVIG treatment did not improve LBR in patients with secondary RPL in our study (3/9 (33.3%) vs. 23/49 (47%); p = 0.495). There were no serious adverse events in the IVIg treatment group, obstetrical/neonatal complications were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: IVIg may be an effective treatment for patients with RPL if appropriately used in specific groups of patients. IVIg is a blood product and subject to shortages especially with unrestricted off-label use. We propose considering IVIg in well-selected patients with high order RPL who have failed standard medical therapy. Further mechanistic studies are needed to understand immune-mediated RPL and IVIg's mode of action. This will enable further refinement of treatment criteria and the development of standardized protocol for its use in RPL.