IMMUNOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF INTRAUTERINE FLUSHES FROM THE UTERINE CAVITY OF INFERTILE PATIENTS WITH ADENOMYOSIS AND THEIR EFFECT ON THE OUTCOMES OF ART PROGRAMS
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of the study – identification of immunological predictors of implantation failures in IVF programs in patients with diffuse grade 1-2 adenomyosis as part of uterine cavity flushes.
Materials and methods. 44 infertile patients with grade 1-2 diffuse adenomyosis and 48 healthy women with male-related infertility were examined. All patients underwent immunological studies of the composition of intrauterine flushes on days 19-21 in the menstrual cycle preceding the IVF program: lactoferrin (LF), α2-macroglobulin (α2-MG), α1-antitrypsin (α1-AT), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interferon-γ (INF-γ), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) by enzyme immunoassay and total protein (OB) by pyrogallol method, followed by an assessment of the effect of these indicators on the effectiveness of treatment.
Statistical processing of the obtained data was performed in the R statistical environment (v.3.6, GNU GPL2 license). The results were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.
Results. In infertile women with a diffuse form of grade 1-2 adenomyosis, increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines TNF-α, IL-6 and the α-1-AT protease inhibitor were found in intrauterine flushes, as well as decreased levels of IL-8 and B. Implantation failures in IVF programs were associated with increased α-1-AT values above 5200 mcg/l with simultaneous a decrease in the level of less than 3.3 g/l.
Keywords
Article Details
Information about financing and conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no apparent or potential conflicts of interest related to the publication of this article.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How to Cite
References
Bourdon M, Santulli P, Jeljeli M, Vannuccini S, Marcellin L, Doridot L, et al. Immunological changes associated with adenomyosis: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2021; 27(1): 108-129. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmaa038
Khan KN, Fujishita A, Mori T. Pathogenesis of Human Adenomyosis: Current Understanding and Its Association with Infertility. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(14): 4057. doi: 10.3390/jcm11144057
Krasnopolskaya KV, Nazarenko TA, Popov AA, Fedorov AA. IVF in modern algorithms for the treatment of infertility in adenonomyosis. M.: MEDpress-inform, 2019. 72 p. Russian (Краснопольская КВ, Назаренко ТА, Попов АА, Федоров АА. ЭКО в современных алгоритмах лечения бесплодия при аденономиозе. М.: МЕДпресс-информ, 2019. 72 с.)
Tskhai VB, Radzinsky VE, ed. Adenomyosis. Contraversions of modernity. Pain, bleeding, infertility. M.: StatusPraesens, 2020. 208 p. Russian (Цхай В.Б., Радзинский В.Е., ред. Аденомиоз. Контраверсии современности. Боли, кровотечения, бесплодие. М.: StatusPraesens, 2020. 208 с.)
Yoldemir T. Adenomyosis and fertility outcomes. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020; 36(6): 473-474. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2020.1773426
Sharma S, Bathwal S, Agarwal N, Chattopadhyay R, Saha I, Chakravarty B. Does presence of adenomyosis affect reproductive outcome in IVF cycles? A retrospective analysis of 973 patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019; 38(1): 13-21. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.09.014. Erratum in: Reprod Biomed Online. 2024; 48(5): 103911. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.103911
Adamyan LV, Sokolov AD, Avetisyan DS, Shapovalenko RA. Modern diagnostic methods for adenomyosis: a systematic review. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2023; 29(3): 81-90. Russian. (Адамян Л.В., Соколов А.Д., Аветисян Д.С., Шаповаленко Р.А. Современные методы диагностики аденомиоза: систематический обзор //Проблемы репродукции. 2023. Т. 29, № 3. С. 81-90). doi: 10.17116/repro20232903181
Pirtea P, de Ziegler D, Ayoubi JM. Endometrial receptivity in adenomyosis and/or endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2023; 119(5): 741-745. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.03.004
Barbanti C, Centini G, Lazzeri L, Habib N, Labanca L, Zupi E, et al. Adenomyosis and infertility: the role of the junctional zone. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2021; 37(7): 577-583. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2021.1878131
Squillace ALA, Simonian DS, Allegro MC, Borges E Júnior, Bianchi PHM, Bibancos M. Adenomyosis and in vitro fertilization impacts – A literature review. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2021; 25(2): 303-309. doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20200104
Maclean A, Barzilova V, Patel S, Bates F, Hapangama DK. Characterising the immune cell phenotype of ectopic adenomyosis lesions compared with eutopic endometrium: A systematic review. J Reprod Immunol. 2023; 157: 103925. doi: 10.1016/j.jri.2023.103925
Huseynova ZSk. Adenomyosis and reproductive disorders. International scientific review of the problems and prospects of modern science and education: Collection of scientific articles LVI International correspondence scientific and practical conference, Boston, USA, 24-25 mart, 2019. Boston. 2019; 84-87. (Гусейнова ЗСк. Аденомиоз и нарушения репродуктивной функции. International scientific review of the problems and prospects of modern science and education: Collection of scientific articles LVI International correspondence scientific and practical conference, Boston, USA, 24-25 марта, 2019 года. Boston. 2019: 84-87)
Stanekova V, Woodman RJ, Tremellen K. The rate of euploid miscarriage is increased in the setting of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Open. 2018; 2018(3): hoy011. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoy011. Erratum in: Hum Reprod Open. 2019; 2019(1): hoy026. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoy026
Wang Y, Yi YC, Guu HF, Chen YF, Kung HF, Chang JC, et al. Impact of adenomyosis and endometriosis on IVF/ICSI pregnancy outcome in patients undergoing gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment and frozen embryo transfer. Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1): 6741. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-34045-7
Alves AR, Dias MF, Silvestre M. Endometrial fluid biomarkers and their potential as predictors of successful embryo implantation. Biomedicine (Taipei). 2023; 13(3): 1-8. doi: 10.37796/2211-8039.1413
Zhu X, Niu Z, Ye Y, Xia L, Chen Q, Feng Y. Endometrium cytokine profiles are altered following ovarian stimulation but almost not in subsequent hormone replacement cycles. Cytokine. 2019; 114: 6-10. doi: 10.1016/j.cyto.2018.11.002