4.4 Review

Lymphocyte immunotherapy in recurrent miscarriage and recurrent implantation failure

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aji.13408

Keywords

lymphocyte immunotherapy; recurrent implantation failure; recurrent miscarriage; reproductive failure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

LIT has shown improvement in pregnancy outcomes for couples with RM in most studies. The current evidence mainly consists of quasi-experimental studies, with few randomized, double-blind studies. However, the evidence is not convincing for the use of LIT in RIF patients.
Problem Lymphocyte immunotherapy (LIT) emerged in the early 1980s as a new therapeutic proposal for couples with a history of recurrent miscarriages (RM). However, in the early 2000s, the effectiveness of LIT was questioned. Recently, meta-analyses have observed the effectiveness and safety of LIT in treating couples with RM. Some studies evaluated the use of LIT in recurrent implantation failure (RIF) in in vitro fertilization cycles. Methods This systematic and narrative review evaluated the data available in the literature regarding the efficacy and safety of the use of LIT. Searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted, using the following keywords: recurrent miscarriage, lymphocyte immunotherapy, and recurrent implantation failure. Results This review describes the historical aspects of LIT and discusses its protocols, mechanisms of action, side effects, complications, and current evidence of the effectiveness in cases of reproductive failure. It also discusses the use of LIT during the COVID-19 pandemic and new immunological therapies. Conclusion In the vast majority of studies, the use of LIT for RM couples has shown an improvement in pregnancy outcomes. The most of the current studies that support the evidence are quasi-experimental, with few randomized, double-blind studies (Level of evidence III). However, the current evidence are not convincing for the use of LIT in RIF patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available