4.4 Article

Intravenous Immunoglobulin G Improves Pregnancy Outcome in Women with Recurrent Pregnancy Losses with Cellular Immune Abnormalities

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 75, Issue 1, Pages 59-68

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aji.12442

Keywords

Cytokine; intravenous immunoglobulin; natural killer cell; pregnancy outcome; recurrent pregnancy loss

Funding

  1. Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare grant, Republic of Korea [A120136]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Problem We investigated the therapeutic effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). Method of study This was a retrospective observational study. Total 189 RPL women who experienced >= 2 miscarriages were enrolled and investigated conventional etiologies, thrombophilia, and cellular immunity. Patients were divided into four groups; known etiology with (Gr1) and without cellular immune abnormality (Gr2), unknown etiology with (Gr3) and without cellular immune abnormality (Gr4). IVIG was administrated from early pregnancy to 30 weeks of gestation to women with cellular immune abnormality (Gr1 + Gr3). Results Cellular immune abnormalities (increased level or cytotoxicity of NK cells and Th1/Th2 ratio) were present in 111 of 189 RPL women (58.7%). Live birth rates of women with and without cellular immune abnormality were not different (Gr1 + Gr3, 84.8% versus Gr2 + Gr4, 89.7%). Furthermore, IVIG success rates were the same between Gr1 and Gr3, those who had cellular immune abnormality. Nevertheless lack of an appropriate control in this study, our IVIG outcome demonstrated better live birth rate compared with those of other investigators. Conclusion Treatment modalities stratified by underlying etiologies of RPL may improve pregnancy outcome. Administration of IVIG is likely to have clinical efficacy in RPL women with cellular immune abnormality.

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