Efficacy of Endometrial Receptivity Testing for Recurrent Implantation Failure in Patients with Euploid Embryo Transfers: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview

Journal Trials

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties General Medicine
Pharmacology

Date 2024 May 28

PMID 38807239

Authors

Yao Lu

Xinyi Mao

Yaqiong He

Yuan Wang

Yun Sun

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Embryo implantation remains a critical barrier in assisted reproductive technologies. One of the main causes of unsuccessful embryo implantation is window of implantation (WOI) displacement, particularly in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF). Therefore, a reliable diagnostic tool for identifying the optimal WOI is essential. Previous data has suggested that a novel RNA-Seq-based endometrial receptivity testing (ERT) can diagnose WOI, guide personalized embryo transfer (pET), and improve pregnancy outcomes in patients with RIF compared to standard embryo transfer (sET). However, there is still a lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT) with sufficient power to determine whether pET based on ERT can increase the rate of live births as the primary outcome.

Methods: This trial is a prospective, single-blind, parallel-group RCT (1:1 ratio of pET versus sET). Infertile women with RIF who intend to undergo frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) with the availability of at least one euploid blastocyst for transfer will be enrolled and assigned into two parallel groups randomly. Participants in the intervention group will undergo ERT and then pET based on the results of ERT, while those in the control group will undergo sET. The primary outcome is live birth rate.

Discussion: The findings of this study will provide evidence for the effect of pET guided by ERT on pregnancy outcomes in patients with RIF.

Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100049041. Registered on 20 July 2021.

Citing Articles

A Comprehensive Review of the Endometrial Receptivity Array in Euploid Embryo Transfer Cycles.

Sharma M, Dubey P, Sunda U, Tilva H Cureus. 2024; 16(6):e63173.

PMID: 39070514 PMC: 11282320. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.63173.

Personalized versus standard frozen-thawed embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Luo R, Wang J, Liu Y, Shen T, Zhao X, Liang Y J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023; 40(4):719-734.

PMID: 36626103 PMC: 10224903. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02710-x.

References

Simon C, Gomez C, Cabanillas S, Vladimirov I, Castillon G, Giles J . A 5-year multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing personalized, frozen and fresh blastocyst transfer in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020; 41(3):402-415. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.06.002. View

Mantione K, Kream R, Kuzelova H, Ptacek R, Raboch J, Samuel J . Comparing bioinformatic gene expression profiling methods: microarray and RNA-Seq. Med Sci Monit Basic Res. 2014; 20:138-42. PMC: 4152252. DOI: 10.12659/MSMBR.892101. View

Tan J, Kan A, Hitkari J, Taylor B, Tallon N, Warraich G . The role of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) in patients who have failed euploid embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018; 35(4):683-692. PMC: 5949105. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-017-1112-2. View

Doyle N, Jahandideh S, Hill M, Widra E, Levy M, Devine K . Effect of Timing by Endometrial Receptivity Testing vs Standard Timing of Frozen Embryo Transfer on Live Birth in Patients Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2022; 328(21):2117-2125. PMC: 9856480. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.20438. View

De Geyter C, Wyns C, Calhaz-Jorge C, de Mouzon J, Ferraretti A, Kupka M . 20 years of the European IVF-monitoring Consortium registry: what have we learned? A comparison with registries from two other regions. Hum Reprod. 2020; 35(12):2832-2849. PMC: 7744162. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa250. View

Bai F, Wang D, Fan Y, Qiu J, Wang L, Dai Y . Assisted reproductive technology service availability, efficacy and safety in mainland China: 2016. Hum Reprod. 2020; 35(2):446-452. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez245. View

Hou Z, Zhang Q, Zhao J, Xu A, He A, Huang X . Value of endometrial echo pattern transformation after hCG trigger in predicting IVF pregnancy outcome: a prospective cohort study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2019; 17(1):74. PMC: 6729034. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-019-0516-5. View

Craciunas L, Gallos I, Chu J, Bourne T, Quenby S, Brosens J . Conventional and modern markers of endometrial receptivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2019; 25(2):202-223. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmy044. View

Sebastian-Leon P, Garrido N, Remohi J, Pellicer A, Diaz-Gimeno P . Asynchronous and pathological windows of implantation: two causes of recurrent implantation failure. Hum Reprod. 2018; 33(4):626-635. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey023. View

10.

He A, Zou Y, Wan C, Zhao J, Zhang Q, Yao Z . The role of transcriptomic biomarkers of endometrial receptivity in personalized embryo transfer for patients with repeated implantation failure. J Transl Med. 2021; 19(1):176. PMC: 8082865. DOI: 10.1186/s12967-021-02837-y. View

11.

Gomez E, Ruiz-Alonso M, Miravet J, Simon C . Human Endometrial Transcriptomics: Implications for Embryonic Implantation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2015; 5(7):a022996. PMC: 4484960. DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a022996. View

12.

Bergh P, Navot D . The impact of embryonic development and endometrial maturity on the timing of implantation. Fertil Steril. 1992; 58(3):537-42. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)55259-5. View

13.

Hashimoto T, Koizumi M, Doshida M, Toya M, Sagara E, Oka N . Efficacy of the endometrial receptivity array for repeated implantation failure in Japan: A retrospective, two-centers study. Reprod Med Biol. 2017; 16(3):290-296. PMC: 5715887. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12041. View

14.

Noyes R, Hertig A, Rock J . Dating the endometrial biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975; 122(2):262-3. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(16)33500-1. View

15.

Mascarenhas M, Jeve Y, Polanski L, Sharpe A, Yasmin E, Bhandari H . Management of recurrent implantation failure: British Fertility Society policy and practice guideline. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2021; 25(5):813-837. DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2021.1905886. View

16.

Cariati F, DArgenio V, Tomaiuolo R . The evolving role of genetic tests in reproductive medicine. J Transl Med. 2019; 17(1):267. PMC: 6694655. DOI: 10.1186/s12967-019-2019-8. View

17.

Diaz-Gimeno P, Horcajadas J, Martinez-Conejero J, Esteban F, Alama P, Pellicer A . A genomic diagnostic tool for human endometrial receptivity based on the transcriptomic signature. Fertil Steril. 2010; 95(1):50-60, 60.e1-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.063. View

18.

Murray M, Meyer W, Zaino R, Lessey B, Novotny D, Ireland K . A critical analysis of the accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical utility of histologic endometrial dating in fertile women. Fertil Steril. 2004; 81(5):1333-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.11.030. View

19.

Abdolmohammadi-Vahid S, Danaii S, Hamdi K, Jadidi-Niaragh F, Ahmadi M, Yousefi M . Novel immunotherapeutic approaches for treatment of infertility. Biomed Pharmacother. 2016; 84:1449-1459. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2016.10.062. View

20.

Diaz-Gimeno P, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Bosch N, Martinez-Conejero J, Alama P . The accuracy and reproducibility of the endometrial receptivity array is superior to histology as a diagnostic method for endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2012; 99(2):508-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.046. View