Prediction of male infertility by the World Health Organization laboratory manual for assessment of semen analysis: A systematic review

How and Why to Define Unexplained Infertility?

Unexplained infertility represents up to 30% of all cases of infertility. It is a diagnosis of exclusion, where no cause for infertility may be identified in the investigation of the couple, be it anovulation, fallopian tube blockage, or severe male factor. Unexplained infertility therefore cannot be considered a diagnosis to which a specific treatment is directed, rather that it indicates a failure to reach a diagnosis of the true cause of infertility. In this review, we explore the evidence base and potential limitations of the current routine infertility assessment. We also aim to highlight the importance of considering the prognosis of each individual couple through the process of assessment and propose a reconsidered approach to treatment, targeted to the prognosis rather than the diagnosis. Ultimately, a better understanding of the mechanisms of infertility will reduce the number of couples diagnosed with "unexplained" infertility.

Staphylococcusaureus protein A as a means of assessing sperm penetrability in cervical mucus in vitro

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of Staphylococcus protein A (SPA) in improving the penetration ability of sperm and reducing antisperm antibody (ASA) titers in immunologically infertile males was evaluated.

METHODS

Seminal fluid samples were obtained from 15 infertile men, and ASA titers were assessed with the latex agglutination test. Identification of immunoglobulin (Ig) classes and characterization of the antigens involved in the immune response were performed using indirect immunofluorescence. Local ASAs typically present as a mixture of IgG and IgA classes. The capillary tube penetration method was used to assess the capability of spermatozoa to penetrate the cervical mucus (CM).

RESULTS

ASAs associated with the neck region of sperm showed a significantly lower migration distance in the CM of infertile females than ASAs associated with the head or tail segments. ASA-positive seminal fluid exhibited significant increases in the mean migration distance (2.6 ± 1.4 cm vs. 1.54 ± 1.1 cm, respectively; p< 0.001) and sperm concentration (174 ± 121.0 × 10³/mL vs. 101 ± 93.7 × 10³/mL, respectively; p= 0.033) after treatment with SPA compared to pre-treated samples. A significant reduction (p< 0.01) in the recorded ASA titer was detected.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that SPA can be used as a sorting regimen for insemination programs. However, further studies are warranted to assess its influence on pregnancy rate.

Best laboratory practices and therapeutic interventions to reduce sperm DNA damage

Conventional semen analysis is considered the cornerstone investigation for infertile men. Nonetheless, this routine test does not provide information on important sperm functions like sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF). Abnormalities of human spermatozoal nucleus and chromatin have a detrimental impact on both natural and assisted reproductive outcomes. In vivo, SDF results from abnormalities in chromatin compaction, abortive apoptosis and oxidative stress, while in vitro, a number of factors may be implicated. Various SDF testing methods are available, and the most commonly utilised assays include terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labelling (TUNEL), sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test, sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) and Comet assay. SDF testing has shown beneficial effects on treatment decision-making; however, its routine use in the initial evaluation of infertile men is still not recommended. One of the treatment options to reduce sperm DNA damage is the use of antioxidants. Despite the documented improvement in semen parameters and sperm DNA integrity following antioxidant therapy, no definitive recommendation is reached due to lack of large, well-designed, randomised, placebo-controlled trials assessing their exact role in male factor infertility. The objectives of this review article are to illustrate the aetiologies of SDF, to describe the effects of SDF on male factor fertility, to explore the common techniques utilised in SDF testing, to review the clinical indications for SDF testing and to review the effect of antioxidant therapy as a method to alleviate SDF.

Comparative analysis of tests used to assess sperm chromatin integrity and DNA fragmentation

Male infertility has a complex etiology, and many times, the cause is unknown. While routine semen analysis provides an overview of basic semen parameters, such as sperm concentration, motility, viability and morphology, a significant overlap of these parameters has been reported in fertile and infertile men. Moreover, conventional semen parameters do not reveal the cellular or molecular mechanisms of sperm dysfunctions leading to infertility. Therefore, sperm functional parameters, including sperm chromatin integrity, are evaluated to provide information on subtle sperm defects that are not routinely identified. Incomplete or defective sperm chromatin condensation increases the susceptibility of the sperm DNA to oxidative damage or other factors. To evaluate sperm chromatin integrity, different methods with varying degrees of diagnostic and prognostic capabilities are available. Among these assays, SCSA, TUNEL and SCD assays are most commonly used. While these assays rather evaluate the DNA directly for damages, the aniline blue and chromomycin A3 stains test for the quality of chromatin condensation. Thus, this review discusses and compares different methods used to evaluate sperm chromatin integrity and condensation, and their inclusion in the routine evaluation of the male infertility.

The 1999 and 2010 WHO reference values for human semen analysis to predict sperm DNA damage: A comparative study

Standard semen parameters are often used to predict male fertility, but whether the 2010 World Health Organization (WHO 2010) thresholds are better predictors than the 1999 thresholds has not been investigated. In this study, we addressed this issue using sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) as a marker of male fertility in 134 subfertile male individuals. To compare the predictive value of the 1999 thresholds with the 2010 cutoffs, the Youden indices (YIs) of all possible thresholds were calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and compared to each other and to the respective YIs of optimal thresholds. We found that the area under the ROC curves of progressive motility and vitality was the highest among standard semen parameters, and that the YI of both parameters from the 2010 manual was comparable to the respective optimal YIs. In contrast, the threshold of sperm concentration and total sperm number from both WHO recommendations demonstrated low YIs, with substantial differences to the respective optimal YIs. The YIs of normal morphology cutoffs from both WHO manuals were slightly different from each other and from the respective optimal YIs. In conclusion, the 2010 thresholds for progressive motility and vitality are superior to the 1999 thresholds in predicting SDF, whereas the cutoff value of sperm concentration, total sperm number and normal morphology may need further revisions to increase their accuracy.

Are antioxidants a viable treatment option for male infertility?

Oxidative stress is caused by an imbalance between ROS and antioxidants, which plays a significant role in the pathophysiology of many human diseases. There is extensive evidence highlighting the role of oxidative stress in male infertility due to elevated levels of sperm DNA fragmentation and abnormal semen parameters. The use of antioxidants is a potential therapeutic option to reduce ROS and improve semen quality. The appeal is that antioxidants can be easily obtained over the counter and are considered all-natural and therefore healthy. The hypothesis has been that by decreasing oxidative stress, antioxidants may be used for the treatment of male infertility. While initial studies of antioxidant supplementation suggested a beneficial role in the management of male subfertility, additional research has questioned the benefit of these therapies. The focus of this article is to present recent evidence assessing the viability of antioxidant therapy in the treatment of male infertility.

Adherence to WHO 2010 Recommendations in Relation to Semen Analysis Reports in the Laboratories of West Bengal

Background: In 2010, The World Health Organization (WHO) suggested the standards of reporting of semen analysis and the reference values. We tried to determine the adherence to the WHO 2010 standard regarding semen analysis among the laboratories of West Bengal.

Methods: An observational study was carried out by collecting the semen analysis reports from different laboratories. Compliance with the WHO 2010 recommendations regarding the reporting of semen analysis and references mentioned was subsequently analyzed.

Results: A total of 211 laboratory reports were collected; of which 15 were ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology)-laboratories (7%) and 196 were non-ART-laboratories (93%). More than half of the laboratories did not mention any reference values. Only 7.5% used the phrase “WHO 2010” as the reference. Only 3% of the laboratories reported all the six “important” parameters (volume, pH, sperm concentration, motility, morphology and vitality) and used the WHO 2010 references for all of them. The ART laboratories performed significantly better than their non-ART counterparts in reporting and quoting the WHO 2010 reference values.

Conclusion: Even nine years after its introduction, the compliance with the WHO 2010 recommendations on semen analysis was still low among our laboratories. There is need for increased awareness for the laboratory persons in this regard.

A Novel Approach to Improving the Reliability of Manual Semen Analysis: A Paradigm Shift in the Workup of Infertile Men

Conventional semen analysis (SA) is an essential component of the male infertility workup, but requires laboratories to rigorously train and monitor technicians as well as regularly perform quality assurance assessments. Without such measures there is room for error and, consequently, unreliable results. Furthermore, clinicians often rely heavily on SA results when making diagnostic and treatment decisions, however conventional SA is only a surrogate marker of male fecundity and does not guarantee fertility. Considering these challenges, the last several decades have seen the development of many advances in SA methodology, including tests for sperm DNA fragmentation, acrosome reaction, and capacitation. While these new diagnostic tests have improved the scope of information available to clinicians, they are expensive, time-consuming, and require specialized training. The latest advance in laboratory diagnostics is the measurement of seminal oxidation-reduction potential (ORP). The measurement of ORP in an easy, reproducible manner using a new tool called the Male Infertility Oxidative Stress System (MiOXSYS) has demonstrated ORP's potential as a feasible adjunct test to conventional SA. Additionally, the measurement of ORP by this device has been shown to be predictive of both poor semen quality and male infertility. Assessing ORP is a novel approach to both validating manual SA results and identifying patients who may benefit from treatment of male oxidative stress infertility.

Male Oxidative Stress Infertility (MOSI): Proposed Terminology and Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Idiopathic Male Infertility

Despite advances in the field of male reproductive health, idiopathic male infertility, in which a man has altered semen characteristics without an identifiable cause and there is no female factor infertility, remains a challenging condition to diagnose and manage. Increasing evidence suggests that oxidative stress (OS) plays an independent role in the etiology of male infertility, with 30% to 80% of infertile men having elevated seminal reactive oxygen species levels. OS can negatively affect fertility via a number of pathways, including interference with capacitation and possible damage to sperm membrane and DNA, which may impair the sperm's potential to fertilize an egg and develop into a healthy embryo. Adequate evaluation of male reproductive potential should therefore include an assessment of sperm OS. We propose the term Male Oxidative Stress Infertility, or MOSI, as a novel descriptor for infertile men with abnormal semen characteristics and OS, including many patients who were previously classified as having idiopathic male infertility. Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) can be a useful clinical biomarker for the classification of MOSI, as it takes into account the levels of both oxidants and reductants (antioxidants). Current treatment protocols for OS, including the use of antioxidants, are not evidence-based and have the potential for complications and increased healthcare-related expenditures. Utilizing an easy, reproducible, and cost-effective test to measure ORP may provide a more targeted, reliable approach for administering antioxidant therapy while minimizing the risk of antioxidant overdose. With the increasing awareness and understanding of MOSI as a distinct male infertility diagnosis, future research endeavors can facilitate the development of evidence-based treatments that target its underlying cause.

Evaluation of the Standardization in Semen Analysis Performance According to the WHO Protocols Among Laboratories in Tehran, Iran

Background and Objective:

Infertility refers to the failure in achieving pregnancy of a couple after one year of regular sexual intercourse without using a protection method. The purpose of this research work was to evaluate the current status of the test and quality control performance in semen analysis in selected laboratories.

Material and Methods:

The semen analysis was performed in the Laboratory of Andrology in terms of macroscopic examination which include volume, color, viscosity, pH and acidity, and in terms of microscopy: the rate of sperm movement, the exact number of sperms per ml of semen, the percentage of sperm viability and movement, the presence of germ cells and white blood cells. Several questions for each part of the test were selected and answered by the director of the laboratories or andrology section supervisor.

Results:

There was a wide range in the performance of selected medical laboratories in Tehran regarding the standards of semen analysis according to the World Health Organization (WHO) Laboratory Manual for the examination and processing of human semen, fifth edition in 2010. They followed the instructions related to the sample collection in about 70% of the evaluated parameters, initial macroscopic examination in about 87% of the selected subjects, and the microscopic evaluation of sperm in about 65% of the test parameters.

Conclusion:

some laboratories do not follow the instructions of the WHO in performing semen analysis, and most of them do not follow the suggested methods in all parts of the test.

An Infertile Couple's Long and Expensive Path to Varicocele Repair

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the pathways to care that infertile couples requiring varicocele repair (VR) pursue prior to presenting to a male fertility clinic.

METHODS

An IRB-approved single center retrospective review of patients undergoing VR after presentation to an academic male fertility clinic was performed. Patients whose charts included partner histories were assessed for duration of attempting conception, prior workup, and assisted reproductive technology (ART) use.

RESULTS

A total of 405 couples were included. At presentation, mean age was 34.4 (SD ± 6.5) years for men and 31.1 (SD ± 4.3) years for women (P < .0001). A couple's first visit to a physician was a gynecologist in 59% (198/334) of couples, a reproductive endocrinologist (REI) in 25% (83/334) of cases, with 14% (47/334) presenting without a previous female workup and were self-referred, and 2% (6/334) seeing both a gynecologist and REI prior to presentation. On average, couples attempted pregnancy for 22.3 (SD ± 21.1, range 0-120) months prior to presentation. Eighteen percent of couples underwent ART prior to presentation. Couples who had undergone ART had lower pre-VR total motile sperm counts compared to couples not pursuing ART prior to presentation (P = 0.031). The majority (70.4%) of females had no abnormality in their workup, making varicocele the only correctable factor for infertility in the couple.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show a significant delay in referral of infertile men requiring VR. Eighteen percent of couples underwent costly ART prior to an inexpensive male workup. In an era of medical cost containment, early referral to a male infertility specialist is imperative.

The effect of suboptimal semen parameters on male partner's ability to conceive. Is he really subfertile because the test says so?

Context:

In many developing countries, subfertility treatment is not covered by government-funded institutions. It is observed that healthcare providers incriminate male factor for subfertility even when only a slight deviation from presumed normal criteria is observed.

Aim:

This study aims to provide scientific evidence that pregnancies are possible at semen parameters that are below the generally accepted lower limits of normal.

Setting and Design:

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2014 to December 2018.

Materials and Methods:

During the study period, couples who conceived without any treatment of male partner were included. The World Health Organization (WHO) reference values for semen analysis were utilized to assess the reports. The primary outcome measure was conception despite abnormal semen parameters.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Data were analyzed using the SPSS software program, version 15.0 (IBM, Armonk, USA).

Results:

Of the 332 couples included, 233 (70.1%) couples conceived despite suboptimal semen parameters, The most common criterion not satisfied was rapid linear motility –200 (85.8%), 87 (37.3%) men were oligozoospermic, 94 (40.3%) were asthenozoospermic, and 21 (9%) were teratozoospermic. The abnormalities were more common in men having primary subfertility (71.7% vs. 28.3%, P = 0.002). The abnormalities were most common in the age group 40–44 years (n = 91, 39.1%) and those who were overweight (n = 110, 47%).

Conclusions:

A consensus for defining poor semen criteria is the need of the hour so that these males can be counseled satisfactorily. WHO criteria are a standard commonly employed, but they do not necessarily predict the fertility potential.