Nurture vs nature: how can we optimize sperm quality?

Redox Homeostasis and Nrf2-Regulated Mechanisms Are Relevant to Male Infertility

Infertility represents a significant global health challenge, affecting more than 12% of couples worldwide, and most cases of infertility are caused by male factors. Several pathological pathways are implicated in male infertility. The main mechanisms involved are driven by the loss of reduction-oxidation (redox) homeostasis and the resulting oxidative damage as well as the chronic inflammatory process. Increased or severe oxidative stress leads to sperm plasma membrane and DNA oxidative damage, dysregulated RNA processing, and telomere destruction. The signaling pathways of these molecular events are also regulated by Nuclear factor-E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2). The causes of male infertility, the role of oxidative stress in male infertility and the Keap1-Nrf2 antioxidant pathway are reviewed. This review highlights the regulatory role of Nrf2 in the balance between oxidants and antioxidants as relevant mechanisms to male fertility. Nrf2 is involved in the regulation of spermatogenesis and sperm quality. Establishing a link between Nrf2 signaling pathways and the regulation of male fertility provides the basis for molecular modulation of inflammatory processes, reactive oxygen species generation, and the antioxidant molecular network, including the Nrf2-regulated antioxidant response, to improve male reproductive outcomes.

Antioxidants for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, and two trial registers were searched on 15 February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included men with idiopathic infertility and normal semen parameters or fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 90 studies with a total population of 10,303 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Investigators compared and combined 20 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' certainty: the main limitation was that out of the 67 included studies in the meta-analysis only 20 studies reported clinical pregnancy, and of those 12 reported on live birth. The evidence is current up to February 2021. Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.91, P = 0.02, 12 RCTs, 1283 men, I2 = 44%, very low-certainty evidence). Results in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate suggest that if the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 16%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 17% and 27%. However, this result was based on only 246 live births from 1283 couples in 12 small or medium-sized studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75, 827 men, 8 RCTs, P = 0.27, I2 = 32%). Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47, P < 0.00001, 20 RCTs, 1706 men, I2 = 3%, low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. This suggests that, in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, if the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 15%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 20% and 30%. This result was based on 327 clinical pregnancies from 1706 couples in 20 small studies. Adverse events Miscarriage: only six studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. No evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate was found between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.83, P = 0.27, 6 RCTs, 664 men, I2 = 35%, very low-certainty evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile couples, with male factor infertility, with an expected miscarriage rate of 5%, the risk of miscarriage following the use of an antioxidant would be between 4% and 13%. Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal discomfort when compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.99, P = 0.002, 16 RCTs, 1355 men, I2 = 40%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal discomfort following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 7%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 46 out of 1355 men in 16 small or medium-sized studies, and the certainty of the evidence was rated low and heterogeneity was high. We were unable to draw conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, there is very low-certainty evidence from 12 small or medium-sized randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-certainty evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal discomfort, based on very low-certainty evidence. Subfertile couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials studying infertile men and reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

Antioxidants for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility. This review did not examine the use of antioxidants in normospermic men.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers were searched on 1 February 2018, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 studies with a total population of 6264 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Investigators compared and combined 18 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' quality: the main limitation was that out of the 44 included studies in the meta-analysis only 12 studies reported on live birth or clinical pregnancy. The evidence is current up to February 2018.Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.67, P = 0.005, 7 RCTs, 750 men, I² = 40%, low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate, the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 12%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 14% and 26%. However, this result was based on only 124 live births from 750 couples in seven relatively small studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.16; participants = 540 men, 5 RCTs, P = 0.15, I² = 0%).Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.91 to 4.63, P < 0.0001, 11 RCTs, 786 men, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. This suggests that if in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 7%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 12% and 26%. This result was based on 105 clinical pregnancies from 786 couples in 11 small studies.Adverse eventsMiscarriage: only three studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. There was no difference in miscarriage rate between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.60, P = 0.46, 3 RCTs, 247 men, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile men with an expected miscarriage rate of 2%, the chance following the use of an antioxidant would result in the risk of a miscarriage between 1% and 13%.Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal upsets when compared to placebo or no treatment (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.03, P = 0.010, 11 RCTs, 948 men, I² = 50%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal upsets following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 9%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 35 out of 948 men in 10 small or medium-sized studies, and the quality of the evidence was rated very low and was high in heterogeneity.We were unable to draw any conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, there is low-quality evidence from seven small randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-quality evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may also increase. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal upsets but the evidence is of very low quality. Subfertilte couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

Impact of dietary feeding of vitamin E in buffalo bulls on fresh and frozen-thawed semen characteristics and antioxidant status

Vitamin E is the main chain-breaking, naturally occurring free radical scavenger that has significant biological implications on sperm. However, its role as an antioxidant on semen quality of buffalo bulls is still obscure. The present study was undertaken to investigate the effect of dietary feeding of vitamin E on fresh- and frozen-thawed semen characteristics, and antioxidant status in buffalo bull. Six apparently healthy breeding Murrah buffalo bulls were randomly selected at University bull farm for the present study. The bulls were divided into two groups, viz. control group (n = 3) and feeding group (n = 3). The bulls of feeding group were fed vitamin E @ 4000 IU/bull/day for 60 days. Accordingly, 120 ejaculates (one ejaculate/bull/session) were collected from bulls of control and feeding groups during pre-feeding, feeding and post-feeding phase of vitamin E and analyzed for semen characteristics and oxidative stress. Most beneficial effects of dietary feeding of vitamin E were observed during post-feeding phase. The percentages of total and progressive motility, viability, plasma membrane integrity, malondialdehyde (MDA) and glutathione peroxidase (GPX) in bulls fed with vitamin E were significantly higher than in their control counterparts during post-feeding phase of fresh and frozen-thawed semen. The levels of same parameters were also significantly higher as compared to that during feeding stage in fresh- and frozen-thawed semen of feeding group. It is therefore concluded that feeding vitamin E to buffalo bulls protected sperm membrane against oxidative damage and improved the fertilizing potential of spermatozoa.

Antioxidants for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Between 30% to 80% of male subfertility cases are considered to be due to the damaging effects of oxidative stress on sperm and 1 man in 20 will be affected by subfertility. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments and many men are already using these to improve their fertility. It is thought that oral supplementation with antioxidants may improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative stress. Pentoxifylline, a drug that acts like an antioxidant, was also included in this review.  

OBJECTIVES

This Cochrane review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation with antioxidants for subfertile male partners in couples seeking fertility assistance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED databases (from inception until January 2014); trial registers; sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. An updated search was run in August 2014 when potentially eligible studies were placed in 'Studies awaiting assessment'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type or dose of antioxidant supplement (single or combined) taken by the subfertile male partner of a couple seeking fertility assistance with a placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates, adverse events, sperm DNA fragmentation, sperm motility and concentration. Data were combined, where appropriate, to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE methods.  

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 48 RCTs that compared single and combined antioxidants with placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant in a population of 4179 subfertile men. The duration of the trials ranged from 3 to 26 weeks with follow up ranging from 3 weeks to 2 years. The men were aged from 20 to 52 years. Most of the men enrolled in these trials had low total sperm motility and sperm concentration. One study enrolled men after varicocelectomy, one enrolled men with a varicocoele, and one recruited men with chronic prostatitis. Three trials enrolled men who, as a couple, were undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and one trial enrolled men who were part of a couple undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI). Funding sources were stated by 15 trials. Four of these trials stated that funding was from a commercial source and the remaining 11 obtained funding through non-commercial avenues or university grants. Thirty-three trials did not report any funding sources.A limitation of this review was that in a sense we had included two different groups of trials, those that reported on the use of antioxidants and the effect on live birth and clinical pregnancy, and a second group that reported on sperm parameters as their primary outcome and had no intention of reporting the primary outcomes of this review. We included 25 trials reporting on sperm parameters and only three of these reported on live birth or clinical pregnancy. Other limitations included poor reporting of study methods, imprecision, the small number of trials providing usable data, the small sample size of many of the included studies and the lack of adverse events reporting. The evidence was graded as 'very low' to 'low'. The data were current to 31 January 2014.Live birth: antioxidants may have increased live birth rates (OR 4.21, 95% CI 2.08 to 8.51, P< 0.0001, 4 RCTs, 277 men, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 5%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 10% and 31%. However, this result was based on only 44 live births from a total of 277 couples in four small studies.Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may have increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.92 to 6.11, P < 0.0001, 7 RCTs, 522 men, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 6%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated at between 11% and 28%. However, there were only seven small studies in this analysis and the quality of the evidence was rated as low.Miscarriage: only three trials reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. There was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in miscarriage rates between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment groups (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.60, P = 0.46, 3 RCTs, 247 men, I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile men with an expected miscarriage rate of 2%, use of an antioxidant would result in the risk of a miscarriage lying between 1% and 13%.Gastrointestinal upsets: there was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in gastrointestinal upsets when antioxidants were compared to placebo or no treatment as the event rate was very low (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.50, P = 0.46, 6 RCTs, 429 men, I(2) = 0%).We were unable to draw any conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as not enough trials compared the same interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence from only four small randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low quality evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage but this is uncertain as the evidence is of very low quality. Data were lacking on other adverse effects. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials are needed to clarify these results.

Antioxidants for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Between 30% to 80% of male subfertility cases are considered to be due to the damaging effects of oxidative stress on sperm and 1 man in 20 will be affected by subfertility. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments and many men are already using these to improve their fertility. It is thought that oral supplementation with antioxidants may improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative stress. Pentoxifylline, a drug that acts like an antioxidant, was also included in this review.  

OBJECTIVES

This Cochrane review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation with antioxidants for subfertile male partners in couples seeking fertility assistance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED databases (from inception until January 2014); trial registers; sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. An updated search was run in August 2014 when potentially eligible studies were placed in 'Studies awaiting assessment'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type or dose of antioxidant supplement (single or combined) taken by the subfertile male partner of a couple seeking fertility assistance with a placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates, adverse events, sperm DNA fragmentation, sperm motility and concentration. Data were combined, where appropriate, to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE methods.  

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 48 RCTs that compared single and combined antioxidants with placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant in a population of 4179 subfertile men. The duration of the trials ranged from 3 to 26 weeks with follow up ranging from 3 weeks to 2 years. The men were aged from 20 to 52 years. Most of the men enrolled in these trials had low total sperm motility and sperm concentration. One study enrolled men after varicocelectomy, one enrolled men with a varicocoele, and one recruited men with chronic prostatitis. Three trials enrolled men who, as a couple, were undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and one trial enrolled men who were part of a couple undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI). Funding sources were stated by 15 trials. Four of these trials stated that funding was from a commercial source and the remaining 11 obtained funding through non-commercial avenues or university grants. Thirty-three trials did not report any funding sources.A limitation of this review was that in a sense we had included two different groups of trials, those that reported on the use of antioxidants and the effect on live birth and clinical pregnancy, and a second group that reported on sperm parameters as their primary outcome and had no intention of reporting the primary outcomes of this review. We included 25 trials reporting on sperm parameters and only three of these reported on live birth or clinical pregnancy. Other limitations included poor reporting of study methods, imprecision, the small number of trials providing usable data, the small sample size of many of the included studies and the lack of adverse events reporting. The evidence was graded as 'very low' to 'low'. The data were current to 31 January 2014.Live birth: antioxidants may have increased live birth rates (OR 4.21, 95% CI 2.08 to 8.51, P< 0.0001, 4 RCTs, 277 men, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 5%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 10% and 31%. However, this result was based on only 44 live births from a total of 277 couples in four small studies.Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may have increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.92 to 6.11, P < 0.0001, 7 RCTs, 522 men, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 6%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated at between 11% and 28%. However, there were only seven small studies in this analysis and the quality of the evidence was rated as low.Miscarriage: only three trials reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. There was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in miscarriage rates between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment groups (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.60, P = 0.46, 3 RCTs, 247 men, I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile men with an expected miscarriage rate of 2%, use of an antioxidant would result in the risk of a miscarriage lying between 1% and 13%.Gastrointestinal upsets: there was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in gastrointestinal upsets when antioxidants were compared to placebo or no treatment as the event rate was very low (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.50, P = 0.46, 6 RCTs, 429 men, I(2) = 0%).We were unable to draw any conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as not enough trials compared the same interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence from only four small randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low quality evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage but this is uncertain as the evidence is of very low quality. Data were lacking on other adverse effects. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials are needed to clarify these results.

Free radicals and male reproduction

Male factor accounts for almost 50% cases of infertility. The exact mechanism of sperm dysfunction is not known in many cases. Extensive research in the last decade has led to the identification of free radicals (reactive oxygen species) as mediators of sperm dysfunction in both specific diagnoses and idiopathic cases of male infertility. Elevated levels of reactive oxygen species are seen in up to 30-80% of men with male infertility. The role of free radicals has been studied extensively in the process of human reproduction. We know now that a certain level of free radicals is necessary for normal sperm function, whereas an excessive level of free radicals can cause detrimental effect on sperm function and subsequent fertilisation and offspring health. Oxidative stress develops when there is an imbalance between generation of free radicals and scavenging capacity of anti-oxidants in reproductive tract. Oxidative stress has been shown to affect both standard semen parameters and fertilising capacity. In addition, high levels of free radicals have been associated with lack of or poor fertility outcome after natural conception or assisted reproduction. Diagnostic techniques to quantify free radicals in infertile patients can assist physicians treating patients with infertility to plan for proper treatment strategies. In vivo anti-oxidants can be used against oxidative stress in male reproductive tract. Supplementation of in vitro anti-oxidants can help prevent the oxidative stress during sperm preparation techniques in assisted reproduction.

Antioxidants for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Between 30% to 80% of male subfertility cases are considered to be due to the damaging effects of oxidative stress on sperm. Oral supplementation with antioxidants may improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative stress.  

OBJECTIVES

This Cochrane review aimed to evaluate the effect of oral supplementation with antioxidants for male partners of couples undergoing assisted reproduction techniques (ART).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED databases (from their inception until Febuary 2010), trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, reference lists and we asked experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing any type or dose of antioxidant supplement (single or combined) taken by the male partner of a couple seeking fertility assistance with placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant. The outcomes were live birth, pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, sperm DNA damage, sperm motility, sperm concentration and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality, and extracted data.  

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 trials with 2876 couples in total. Live birth: three trials reported live birth. Men taking oral antioxidants had an associated statistically significant increase in live birth rate (pooled odds ratio (OR) 4.85, 95% CI 1.92 to 12.24; P = 0.0008, I(2) = 0%) when compared with the men taking the control. This result was based on 20 live births from a total of 214 couples in only three studies.Pregnancy rate: there were 96 pregnancies in 15 trials including 964 couples. Antioxidant use was associated with a statistically significant increased pregnancy rate compared to control (pooled OR 4.18, 95% CI 2.65 to 6.59; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 0%).Side effects: no studies reported evidence of harmful side effects of the antioxidant therapy used.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve the outcomes of live birth and pregnancy rate for subfertile couples undergoing ART cycles. Further head to head comparisons are necessary to identify the superiority of one antioxidant over another.

The incriminating role of reactive oxygen species in idiopathic male infertility: an evidence based evaluation

The male factor is considered a major contributory factor to infertility. Apart from the conventional causes for male infertility such as varicocoele, cryptorchidism, infections, obstructive lesions, cystic fibrosis, trauma and tumours, a new and important cause has been identified as being responsible for the so-called idiopathic male infertility: oxidative stress. Oxidative Stress (OS) is a condition that occurs when the production of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) overwhelms the antioxidant defense produced against them. In male reproductive pathological conditions, the OS significantly impairs spermatogenesis and sperm function, which may lead to male infertility. Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) known as free radicals are oxidizing agents generated as a result of metabolism of oxygen and have at least one unpaired electron that make them very reactive species. Spermatozoa generate Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) in physiological amounts, which play a role in sperm functions during sperm capacitation, Acrosome Reaction (AR) and oocyte fusion, but they need to be controlled and their concentrations maintained at a level that is not deleterious to the cells. Administration of antioxidants in patients with 'male factor' infertility has begun to attract considerable interest. The main difficulty of such an approach is our incomplete understanding of the role of free radicals in normal and abnormal sperm function leading to male infertility. The purpose of the present review is to address the relationship between ROS and idiopathic male factor infertility.

The role of enzymatic antioxidants detected in the follicular fluid and semen of infertile couples undergoing assisted reproduction

The follicular fluid environment surrounding the oocytes may play a critical role in fertilization and subsequent embryo development. The goal of our study was to evaluate the oxidative stress markers in the semen, blood serum, and follicular fluid of couples undergoing Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI). Two hundred and eight infertile couples underwent ICSI and the levels of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase and lipid peroxidation (LPO) were evaluated. Semen Catalase was highly correlated with fertilization and cleavage rates, but not with pregnancy rates. Fertilization and cleavage rates were correlated with the levels of SOD and Catalase in the follicular fluid. After adjusting for age, a negative correlation was detected between LPO levels in follicular fluid and pregnancy rates. Follicular fluid LPO levels may be a marker as a metabolic activity within the follicle need for establishing a pregnancy.

Male gamete survival at stake: causes and solutions

Over the years, the development of assisted reproductive technology to bypass male factor infertility has improved drastically. Considered one of the most perplexing disorders in the reproductive field, male factor infertility is prevalent and may be on the rise. Unfortunately, its aetiology remains elusive. One of the main reasons lies in the complex machinery and structure of the hydrodynamic sperm cell. Its polyunsaturated fatty acid cell membrane, the protamines in its genetic material and the absence of antioxidants in its cytoplasm ensure that the spermatozoon is highly susceptible to environmental effects. The spermatozoon's genesis, storage, and transport through the male reproductive tract are also susceptible, genetically and pathologically, to environmental effects. This review aims to include all the possible causes of disruption to this unique cell and their probable solutions, in the hope of clearing up the ambiguity that surrounds male factor infertility.

Characterization of oxidative stress status by evaluation of reactive oxygen species levels in whole semen and isolated spermatozoa

We defined the basal levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in normal donors in neat (whole unprocessed) semen specimens, and in mature and immature spermatozoa isolated by a double-density gradient technique. In addition, we demonstrated that the ROS levels were significantly lower in neat semen compared with washed spermatozoa. The reference values of ROS in neat semen and mature spermatozoa can be used to define the pathologic levels of ROS in infertile men and may guide in therapeutic interventions.

Carnitines and male infertility

L-Carnitine (LC) and acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) are highly concentrated in the epididymis and play a crucial role in sperm metabolism and maturation. They are related to sperm motility and have antioxidant properties. The objective of this review is to summarize the multiple roles played by LC and ALC in male reproduction, and to highlight their limitations as well as their benefits in the treatment of male infertility. A variety of studies support the conclusion that LC and/or ALC at total daily amounts of at least 3 g per day can significantly improve both sperm concentration and total sperm counts among men with astheno- or oligoasthenozoospermia. Although many clinical trials have demonstrated the beneficial effects of LC and ALC in selected cases of male infertility, the majority of these studies suffer from a lack of placebo-controlled, double blind design, making it difficult to reach a definite conclusion. Additional, well-designed studies are necessary to further validate the use of carnitines in the treatment of patients with male infertility, specifically in men with poor semen quality.