Low Molecular Weight Heparin Does Not Reduce Miscarriages in Non‐thrombophilic IVF/ICSI‐treated Women

Xiaolin Yang,Fei Chen,Xiuying Yang,Guanhua Du,Yang Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13483

2018-01-01

Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Abstract:Sir, We appreciated receiving comments from Guo1 on our article,2 which is a meta-analysis on the efficacy of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) on the outcomes of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) pregnancy in non-thrombophilic women. It highlights that the discussion on the efficacy of LMWH in assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a hot clinical topic. There are various clinical interventions promoting the success rate of IVF/ICSI in recent years. Among them, LWMH is a relatively safe drug for fetuses and pregnant women. The wide usage of LWMH in ART makes it worthy of thorough evaluation in clinical trials. We included four randomized clinical trials (RCT)3-6 and one quasi-RCT7 that compared LMWH (intervention) with placebo or no treatment (control) in women undergoing IVF/ICSI without thrombophilia.2 Guo1 queried the inclusion of a quasi-RCT conducted by Berker et al7 in the meta-analysis. In our article, IVF/ICSI treatment is influenced by various factors such as age, history of recurrent miscarriage, type of fertility problems, quality and number of embryos, and thrombophilia. It is very difficult for all these conditions to be presented in an identical form. There are only few RCTS on the topic of LMWH application in ART. To decrease the effect of a solo paper on the final result, we tried to gather as many RCTs related to this topic as possible, and also considered the powerful quasi-RCTs. Basically, the study by Berker et al7 met our inclusion criteria. The study used subcutaneous administration of LMWH in IVF/ICSI women on the day of oocyte retrieval. The drug was continued 2 weeks after a positive pregnancy test. The previous ART number was two or three.7 This study is a quasi-RCT because patients were assigned consecutively to use LMWH.7 However, the attrition and reporting in this study were well conducted with a relatively low bias. Guo1 also queried the inclusion of report by Xiong et al4 as not being a RCT for the grouping of patients was conducted according to patient wishes. However, even though Xiong et al stated that the study was a RCT, we agree with Guo that this study is a quasi-RCT. Our article also mentioned that the report of Xiong et al4 had a relatively high bias. However, the criteria for including or excluding patients in that paper and the reporting of that study were well conducted. In addition, LMWH is very popular in China as an adjuvant to IVF/ICSI pregnancy in non-thrombophilic women. It is still worthwhile to include this paper to avoid bias caused by the difference of race. Concerning whether the study of Lodigiani et al3 met the requirements of our meta-analysis: we followed several studies of those authors regarding the usage of LMWH in ART3, 8, 9 and also contacted the corresponding author. Lodigiani et al stated3 that the patient exclusion criteria were abnormal platelet count, with antiphospholipid autoantibodies or other severe thrombophilia, and patients with previous thrombosis or with a contraindication for heparin therapy. We considered that these exclusion criteria basically met our selection rules. Considering another study based on the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database by Gao et al10: that study only included women undergoing frozen and thawed embryo transfer. In addition, thrombophilia was not screened. Thus, this report does not meet our criteria. Overall, our results do not support the routine use of LMWH as an adjuvant therapy in non-thrombophilic IVF/ICSI-treated women. To elucidate fully the effect of LMWH in IVF/ICSI, we conducted a thorough search in numerous medical research databases without geographic or linguistic restrictions. However, IVF/ICSI treatment is influenced by various factors. We agree with the opinion of Guo1 that high-quality RCTs are necessary to draw more reliable conclusions. Therefore, well designed, adequately powered double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trials are necessary.