Our findings support the hypothesis of abnormal white matter microstructure of fronto-temporal cortical networks in ASD, which are associated with core symptoms of the disorder.

STUDY QUESTION What is the global variability in recurrent implantation failure (RIF) definition, investigation and therapy, currently offered to patients undergoing IVF? SUMAMRY ANSWER Definitions, diagnostic investigations and treatments offered to RIF patients differ widely amongst assisted reproduction healthcare professionals and clinical guidelines on RIF are urgently needed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY RIF affects around 10% of patients undergoing IVF worldwide. There is no consensus on the definition of RIF, its diagnostic investigations or the therapeutic options, which leads to inconsistencies in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A cross-sectional study of clinicians and embryologists was conducted between May and June 2020. The survey included 43 questions aimed at understanding participants’ background and their current practice with regards to defining, investigating and managing RIF. The questions were designed by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Special Interest Group (SIG) on implantation and early pregnancy following three consensus meetings. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS A total of 8579 ESHRE members from 6916 IVF centers were invited to participate using two global email calls based on their pre-specified interest in implantation and early pregnancy. SurveyMonkey and SPSS were used for data collection and analysis, respectively. Furthermore, differences were reported in the answers of European and non-European professionals, as well as between public and private settings and among clinicians clustered according to the average number of RIF patients treated per year. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The final data set included 735 clinicians and 300 embryologist or IVF-biologists. The majority defines RIF based on the number of failed embryo transfers (ETs) with the most common threshold adopted being three ETs both fresh and frozen. More than two-thirds take lifestyle factors into account, mainly drugs, smoking and BMI. The highest consensus on which diagnostic investigations should be performed was reached for anatomical malformations and gynecological aspects focusing on hydrosalpinx, Asherman’s syndrome, endometrial thickness and endometriosis. Concerning treatment of RIF patients, the highest consensus was reached for preconceptional therapies, including BMI adjustment, smoking and endometritis followed by therapies during IVF procedures. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The response rate was relatively low, but comparable to other surveys. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS A consensus on definition, diagnosis and treatment of RIF would help to reduce costly, time-consuming and poorly validated approaches. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No external funding was used. B.T. received support from Bayer for Clinical trials concerning endometriosis and Ferring for clinical trials concerning ovarian stimulation. She received reimbursement for travel expenses from Astropharm, Ferring. Dr Kade and is a shareholder of Reprognostics. She is a board member of the Austrian Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology (OEGGG), the associate head of the ‘Reproduktionsmedizinische Zentren Baden-Württemberg’ (RZBW), a member of guideline group of the German Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology (DGGG) and an editorial board member of the following journals: American Journal of Reproductive Immunology (AJRI), Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. All the other authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.

Around 1–5% of all couples experience recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). Established risk factors include anatomical, genetic, endocrine, and hemostatic alterations. With around 50% of idiopathic cases, immunological risk factors are getting into the scientific focus, however international guidelines hardly take them into account. Within this review, the current state of immunological risk factors in RPL in international guidelines of the European Society of Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), German/Austrian/Swiss Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (DGGG/OEGGG/SGGG) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) are evaluated. Special attention was drawn to recommendations in the guidelines regarding diagnostic factors such as autoantibodies, natural killer cells, regulatory T cells, dendritic cells, plasma cells, and human leukocyte antigen system (HLA)-sharing as well as treatment options such as corticosteroids, intralipids, intravenous immunoglobulins, aspirin and heparin in RPL. Finally, the current state of the art focusing on both diagnostic and therapeutic options was summarized.

Idiopathic recurrent miscarriage patients showed higher uNK cell levels than controls supporting the possible impact of uNK cells in the pathophysiology of miscarriage. Our cutoff levels might help to select RM patients which may benefit from immunomodulatory treatment.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background Peripheral and uterine natural killer cells (pNK and uNK cells) are key players in the establishment and maintenance of pregnancy and are disturbed in patients with recurrent miscarriage (RM). Different immunologic risk factors have been proposed between patients with primary RM (pRM, no previous live birth) and secondary RM (sRM, ≥ 1 previous live birth). However, so far, the study populations mainly consisted of small subgroups. Therefore, we aimed to analyse pNK and uNK cells in a large, well defined study population within a prospective study. Methods In total, n = 575 RM patients ( n = 393 pRM, n = 182 sRM) were screened according to a standard protocol for established risk factors as well as pNK and uNK cells. Peripheral blood levels of CD45 + CD3 − CD56 + CD16 + NK cells were determined by flow cytometry and uterine CD56 + NK cells by immunohistochemistry in mid-luteal non-pregnant RM patients. Exclusion of patients with ≥1 established risk factor revealed n = 248 idiopathic RM patients (iRM, n = 167 primary iRM (ipRM), n = 81 secondary iRM (isRM)). Results Patients with pRM and ipRM showed significant higher absolute numbers and percentages of pNK cells compared to sRM and isRM patients (pRM/ipRM vs sRM/isRM, mean ± SD /μl: 239.1 ± 118.7/244.9 ± 112.9 vs 205.1 ± 107.9/206.0 ± 105.6, p = 0.004/ p = 0.009; mean ± SD %: 12.4 ± 5.5/12.8 ± 5.4 vs 11.1 ± 4.6/11.1 ± 4.3, p = 0.001; p = 0.002). Only patients with isRM showed significantly higher uNK levels compared to patients with ipRM (mean ± SD /mm 2 288.4 ± 239.3 vs 218.2 ± 184.5, p = 0.044). Conclusions The demonstrated differences in pNK and uNK cells in RM patients depending on previous live birth might indicate differences in NK cell recruitment and potentially different underlying immune disorders between pRM and sRM. As there is an overlap in the distribution of the NK cell results, further studies with focus on NK cell function are needed in order to clearly identify RM patients with distinct immune abnormalities. The clinical relevance of our findings should be interpreted cautiously until specificity and sensitivity are further evaluated.