Summary of studies evaluating pNK cell cytotoxicity (pNKC) and proportions in women with a history of RPL
Study | N | Patients | NKC | NK cell proportion/counts |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aoki et al. [66] | 24 | ≥ 2 consecutive 1st-trimester RPL (24) vs. nonpregnant controls (44) | Increased preconception NKC with the association of miscarriage rates compared to controls (71% vs. 20%; RR 3.5, 95% CI = 1.8–6.5) | - |
Kwak et al. [8] | 116 | ≥ 3 RPL, 35 pregnant and 81 nonpregnant women. Nonpregnant controls (17) and pregnant controls (22) | - | Increased in CD56+ in nonpregnant RPL vs. nonpregnant controlsIncreased CD56+ and CD56+/CD16+ pNK cells in pregnant RPL vs. pregnant controls |
Emmer et al. [67] | 43 | > 2 RPL before 16 weeks (43), 37 healthy controls | No difference in nonpregnant RPL vs. controlsIncreased NKC during early pregnancy in the RPL group | No difference in CD56+ and CD56+/CD16+ pNK prepregnancy in RPL vs. controlsIncreased CD56+/CD16+ pNK during early pregnancy in the RPL group |
Morikawa et al. [68] | 113 | 113 nonpregnant women with a history of RPL. 39 controls who subsequently experienced a live birth | Elevated pre-conception NKC in women who miscarried vs. women who delivered (42.8% ± 15.8% vs. 32.1% ± 13.7%; P = 0.09) | CD56+ pNK cells (%) not related to cause and number of RPL |
Yamada et al. [69] | 66 | 66 pregnant women with a history of RPL, no controls included | NKC subsequently decreased in the first trimester in livebirth group 32.5% ± 12.3%, 28.1% ± 12.1%, 28.0% ± 11.8% at 4–5 WG, 6–7 WG, 8–9 WGMiscarriage group with normal karyotype had significantly higher NKC at 6–7 WG 41.2% ± 19% vs. 28.1% ± 12.1% | - |
Yamada et al. [70] | 113 | 113 nonpregnant women with a history of RPL > 2, no controls included | Increased preconception NKC in women who had a SAB or biochemical pregnancy vs. livebirth (47% vs. 33%) | Increased preconception pNK % in women who had a SAB or biochemical pregnancy vs. livebirth (17.1% vs. 13.1%) |
Shakhar et al. [71] | 67 | 38 primary RPL (pRPL)29 secondary RPL (sRPL) | Primary aborters had higher NKC than secondary aborters or controls | Primary aborters had higher pNK % and counts than secondary aborters and controls |
Michou et al. [72] | 99 | 25 RPL30 sporadic SAB33 infertile11 fertile controls | - | Decreased CD56+CD16–CD3– pNK cells in sporadic aborters and infertile women |
Perricone et al. [65] | 53 | APS with (25) and without RPL (28) | - | Increased CD56+ pNK % and counts in patients with RPL and APS than APS alone (15.18% ± 7.32% vs. 8.79% ± 4.68%, P ≤ 0.001) |
Wang et al. [73] | 85 | Nonpregnant women with > 2 consecutive SABs (85) and nonpregnant women controls (27) | - | No difference in peripheral CD56+CD16+ NK cells in controls vs. RPL (16.6 ± 6.0 vs. 16.5 ± 6.5), or in CD56+ 16 – (3.8 ± 1.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.4) |
King et al. [74] | 104 | Nonpregnant women, with a history of ≥3 consecutive RPL in the mid-luteal phase (104) vs. controls (33) | - | Patients with RPL had higher pNK % (11.9% vs. 8.8%, P < 0.001) and lower CD56bright:CD56dim (0.54 vs. 0.09, P < 0.05) than controls |
Karami et al. [63] | 23 | 23, > 2 RPL patients36, healthy controls | Increased cytotoxicity in RPL vs. controls (32.14 vs. 10.74, P < 0.001) | Increased CD56dim pNK cell proportion in RPL vs. controls (12.94 vs. 5.37, P < 0.001) |
Lee et al. [75] | 95 | ≥3 idiopathic RPL before 20 weeks. 95 nonpregnant women29 fertile controls | RPL patients had increased levels of NKC compared to controls | RPL patients had increased CD56+ pNK cells (%) compared to controls |
Ahmadi et al. [76] | 78 | ≥3 RPL with the current positive pregnancy test38 treated with IVIg, 40 no treatment controls | IVIg treatment lowered NKC after 32 weeks of gestation (P < 0.0001) | IVIg treatment lowered NK cell percentage after 32 weeks of gestation (P < 0.0001) |
CI: confidence interval; NKC: NK cell cytotoxicity; SAB: spontaneous abortion; IVIg: intravenous immunoglobulin; RR: relative risk; N: sample size
TL wrote the first and final draft of the manuscript and the sections of the paper. Involved in writing various sections of the manuscript. JKK contributed to the conception and design of the paper. Additionally, she was involved in writing the final draft of various sections. KW wrote the section regarding angiogenesis. LA, AT, UG, SD and KB contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted versions.
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interests.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
© The Author(s) 2022.