Diagnosis and Treatment Before Assisted Reproductive Treatments. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k Level, AWMF Register Number 015-085, February 2019) - Part 2, Hemostaseology, Andrology, Genetics and History of Malignant Disease

Technical Aspects and Clinical Limitations of Sperm DNA Fragmentation Testing in Male Infertility: A Global Survey, Current Guidelines, and Expert Recommendations

PURPOSE

Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is a functional sperm abnormality that can impact reproductive potential, for which four assays have been described in the recently published sixth edition of the WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. The purpose of this study was to examine the global practices related to the use of SDF assays and investigate the barriers and limitations that clinicians face in incorporating these tests into their practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to complete an online survey on practices related to SDF diagnostic and treatment approaches. Their responses related to the technical aspects of SDF testing, current professional society guidelines, and the literature were used to generate expert recommendations via the Delphi method. Finally, challenges related to SDF that the clinicians encounter in their daily practice were captured.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 436 reproductive clinicians. Overall, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxyuridine triphosphate Nick-End Labeling (TUNEL) is the most commonly used assay chosen by 28.6%, followed by the sperm chromatin structure assay (24.1%), and the sperm chromatin dispersion (19.1%). The choice of the assay was largely influenced by availability (70% of respondents). A threshold of 30% was the most selected cut-off value for elevated SDF by 33.7% of clinicians. Of respondents, 53.6% recommend SDF testing after 3 to 5 days of abstinence. Although 75.3% believe SDF testing can provide an explanation for many unknown causes of infertility, the main limiting factors selected by respondents are a lack of professional society guideline recommendations (62.7%) and an absence of globally accepted references for SDF interpretation (50.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the largest global survey on the technical aspects of SDF testing as well as the barriers encountered by clinicians. Unified global recommendations regarding clinician implementation and standard laboratory interpretation of SDF testing are crucial.

Controversy and Consensus on the Management of Elevated Sperm DNA Fragmentation in Male Infertility: A Global Survey, Current Guidelines, and Expert Recommendations

PURPOSE

Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) has been associated with male infertility and poor outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The purpose of this study was to investigate global practices related to the management of elevated SDF in infertile men, summarize the relevant professional society recommendations, and provide expert recommendations for managing this condition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online global survey on clinical practices related to SDF was disseminated to reproductive clinicians, according to the CHERRIES checklist criteria. Management protocols for various conditions associated with SDF were captured and compared to the relevant recommendations in professional society guidelines and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations and consensus on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF were then formulated and adapted using the Delphi method.

RESULTS

A total of 436 experts from 55 different countries submitted responses. As an initial approach, 79.1% of reproductive experts recommend lifestyle modifications for infertile men with elevated SDF, and 76.9% prescribe empiric antioxidants. Regarding antioxidant duration, 39.3% recommend 4-6 months and 38.1% recommend 3 months. For men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, and couples experiencing recurrent miscarriages associated with elevated SDF, most respondents refer to ART 6 months after failure of conservative and empiric medical management. Infertile men with clinical varicocele, normal conventional semen parameters, and elevated SDF are offered varicocele repair immediately after diagnosis by 31.4%, and after failure of antioxidants and conservative measures by 40.9%. Sperm selection techniques and testicular sperm extraction are also management options for couples undergoing ART. For most questions, heterogenous practices were demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents the results of a large global survey on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF and reveals a lack of consensus among clinicians. Furthermore, it demonstrates the scarcity of professional society guidelines in this regard and attempts to highlight the relevant evidence. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.

Biopsy-free profiling of the uterine immune system in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss and unexplained infertility

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the differences in menstrual blood lymphocytes between controls, patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and patients with unexplained infertility (uINF)?

DESIGN

Prospective study including 46 healthy controls, 28 RPL and 11 uINF patients. A feasibility study compared lymphocyte compositions of endometrial biopsies and menstrual blood collected during the first 48 h of menstruation in seven controls. In all patients, peripheral and menstrual blood from the first and subsequent 24 h were analysed separately by flow cytometry, focusing on the main lymphocyte populations and natural killer (NK) cell subsets.

RESULTS

The first 24 h of menstrual blood resembles the uterine immune milieu as tested by endometrial biopsy. RPL patients showed significantly higher menstrual blood CD56+ NK cell numbers than controls (mean ± SD: 31.13 ± 7.52% versus 36.73 ± 5.4%, P = 0.002). Menstrual blood CD56dimCD16bright NK cells within the CD56+ NK cell population were decreased in RPL (16.34 ± 14.65%, P = 0.011) and uINF (15.7 ± 5.91%, P = 0.02) patients versus control (20.42 ± 11.53%). uINF patients had the lowest menstrual blood CD3+ T cell counts (38.81 ± 5.04%, control versus uINF: P = 0.01) and cytotoxicity receptors NKp46 and NKG2D on CD56brightCD16dim cells were higher in uINF (68.12 ± 11.84%, P = 0.006; 45.99 ± 13.83%, P = 0.01, respectively) and RPL (NKp46: 66.21 ± 15.36%, P = 0.009) patients versus controls. RPL and uINF patients had higher peripheral CD56+ NK cell counts versus controls (11.42 ± 4.05%, P = 0.021; 12.86 ± 4.29%, P = 0.009 versus 8.4 ± 3.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with controls, RPL and uINF patients had a different menstrual blood-NK-subtype profile, indicating an altered cytotoxicity. In future studies, this non-invasive analysis might enable identification and monitoring of patients receiving immunomodulatory medications.

Controversy and Consensus on Indications for Sperm DNA Fragmentation Testing in Male Infertility: A Global Survey, Current Guidelines, and Expert Recommendations

PURPOSE

Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) testing was recently added to the sixth edition of the World Health Organization laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Many conditions and risk factors have been associated with elevated SDF; therefore, it is important to identify the population of infertile men who might benefit from this test. The purpose of this study was to investigate global practices related to indications for SDF testing, compare the relevant professional society guideline recommendations, and provide expert recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to take part in a global online survey on SDF clinical practices. This was conducted following the CHERRIES checklist criteria. The responses were compared to professional society guideline recommendations related to SDF and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations on indications for SDF testing were then formulated, and the Delphi method was used to reach consensus.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 436 experts from 55 countries. Almost 75% of respondents test for SDF in all or some men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, 39% order it routinely in the work-up of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), and 62.2% investigate SDF in smokers. While 47% of reproductive urologists test SDF to support the decision for varicocele repair surgery when conventional semen parameters are normal, significantly fewer general urologists (23%; p=0.008) do the same. Nearly 70% would assess SDF before assisted reproductive technologies (ART), either always or for certain conditions. Recurrent ART failure is a common indication for SDF testing. Very few society recommendations were found regarding SDF testing.

CONCLUSIONS

This article presents the largest global survey on the indications for SDF testing in infertile men, and demonstrates diverse practices. Furthermore, it highlights the paucity of professional society guideline recommendations. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.

ESHRE good practice recommendations on recurrent implantation failure

STUDY QUESTION

How should recurrent implantation failure (RIF) in patients undergoing ART be defined and managed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

This is the first ESHRE good practice recommendations paper providing a definition for RIF together with recommendations on how to investigate causes and contributing factors, and how to improve the chances of a pregnancy.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

RIF is a challenge in the ART clinic, with a multitude of investigations and interventions offered and applied in clinical practice, often without biological rationale or with unequivocal evidence of benefit.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

This document was developed according to a predefined methodology for ESHRE good practice recommendations. Recommendations are supported by data from the literature, if available, and the results of a previously published survey on clinical practice in RIF and the expertise of the working group. A literature search was performed in PubMed and Cochrane focussing on 'recurrent reproductive failure', 'recurrent implantation failure', and 'repeated implantation failure'.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

The ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure included eight members representing the ESHRE Special Interest Groups for Implantation and Early Pregnancy, Reproductive Endocrinology, and Embryology, with an independent chair and an expert in statistics. The recommendations for clinical practice were formulated based on the expert opinion of the working group, while taking into consideration the published data and results of the survey on uptake in clinical practice. The draft document was then open to ESHRE members for online peer review and was revised in light of the comments received.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The working group recommends considering RIF as a secondary phenomenon of ART, as it can only be observed in patients undergoing IVF, and that the following description of RIF be adopted: 'RIF describes the scenario in which the transfer of embryos considered to be viable has failed to result in a positive pregnancy test sufficiently often in a specific patient to warrant consideration of further investigations and/or interventions'. It was agreed that the recommended threshold for the cumulative predicted chance of implantation to identify RIF for the purposes of initiating further investigation is 60%. When a couple have not had a successful implantation by a certain number of embryo transfers and the cumulative predicted chance of implantation associated with that number is greater than 60%, then they should be counselled on further investigation and/or treatment options. This term defines clinical RIF for which further actions should be considered. Nineteen recommendations were formulated on investigations when RIF is suspected, and 13 on interventions. Recommendations were colour-coded based on whether the investigations/interventions were recommended (green), to be considered (orange), or not recommended, i.e. not to be offered routinely (red).

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

While awaiting the results of further studies and trials, the ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure recommends identifying RIF based on the chance of successful implantation for the individual patient or couple and to restrict investigations and treatments to those supported by a clear rationale and data indicating their likely benefit.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This article provides not only good practice advice but also highlights the investigations and interventions that need further research. This research, when well-conducted, will be key to making progress in the clinical management of RIF.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The meetings and technical support for this project were funded by ESHRE. N.M. declared consulting fees from ArtPRED (The Netherlands) and Freya Biosciences (Denmark); Honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, Merck, Abbott, and IBSA; being co-founder of Verso Biosense. He is Co-Chief Editor of Reproductive Biomedicine Online (RBMO). D.C. declared being an Associate Editor of Human Reproduction Update, and declared honoraria for lectures from Merck, Organon, IBSA, and Fairtility; support for attending meetings from Cooper Surgical, Fujifilm Irvine Scientific. G.G. declared that he or his institution received financial or non-financial support for research, lectures, workshops, advisory roles, or travelling from Ferring, Merck, Gedeon-Richter, PregLem, Abbott, Vifor, Organon, MSD, Coopersurgical, ObsEVA, and ReprodWissen. He is an Editor of the journals Archives of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biomedicine Online, and Editor in Chief of Journal Gynäkologische Endokrinologie. He is involved in guideline developments and quality control on national and international level. G.L. declared he or his institution received honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, Vianex/Organon, and MSD. He is an Associate Editor of Human Reproduction Update, immediate past Coordinator of Special Interest Group for Reproductive Endocrinology of ESHRE and has been involved in Guideline Development Groups of ESHRE and national fertility authorities. D.J.M. declared being an Associate Editor for Human Reproduction Open and statistical Advisor for Reproductive Biomedicine Online. B.T. declared being shareholder of Reprognostics and she or her institution received financial or non-financial support for research, clinical trials, lectures, workshops, advisory roles or travelling from support for attending meetings from Ferring, MSD, Exeltis, Merck Serono, Bayer, Teva, Theramex and Novartis, Astropharm, Ferring. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type. Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

A systematic review of the validated monogenic causes of human male infertility: 2020 update and a discussion of emerging gene-disease relationships

BACKGROUND

Human male infertility has a notable genetic component, including well-established diagnoses such as Klinefelter syndrome, Y-chromosome microdeletions and monogenic causes. Approximately 4% of all infertile men are now diagnosed with a genetic cause, but a majority (60-70%) remain without a clear diagnosis and are classified as unexplained. This is likely in large part due to a delay in the field adopting next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, and the absence of clear statements from field leaders as to what constitutes a validated cause of human male infertility (the current paper aims to address this). Fortunately, there has been a significant increase in the number of male infertility NGS studies. These have revealed a considerable number of novel gene-disease relationships (GDRs), which each require stringent assessment to validate the strength of genotype-phenotype associations. To definitively assess which of these GDRs are clinically relevant, the International Male Infertility Genomics Consortium (IMIGC) has identified the need for a systematic review and a comprehensive overview of known male infertility genes and an assessment of the evidence for reported GDRs.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

In 2019, the first standardised clinical validity assessment of monogenic causes of male infertility was published. Here, we provide a comprehensive update of the subsequent 1.5 years, employing the joint expertise of the IMIGC to systematically evaluate all available evidence (as of 1 July 2020) for monogenic causes of isolated or syndromic male infertility, endocrine disorders or reproductive system abnormalities affecting the male sex organs. In addition, we systematically assessed the evidence for all previously reported possible monogenic causes of male infertility, using a framework designed for a more appropriate clinical interpretation of disease genes.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines up until 1 July 2020 for publications in English, using search terms related to 'male infertility' in combination with the word 'genetics' in PubMed. Next, the quality and the extent of all evidence supporting selected genes were assessed using an established and standardised scoring method. We assessed the experimental quality, patient phenotype assessment and functional evidence based on gene expression, mutant in-vitro cell and in-vivo animal model phenotypes. A final score was used to determine the clinical validity of each GDR, across the following five categories: no evidence, limited, moderate, strong or definitive. Variants were also reclassified according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics-Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG-AMP) guidelines and were recorded in spreadsheets for each GDR, which are available at imigc.org.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome of this review was an overview of all known GDRs for monogenic causes of human male infertility and their clinical validity. We identified a total of 120 genes that were moderately, strongly or definitively linked to 104 infertility phenotypes.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Our systematic review curates all currently available evidence to reveal the strength of GDRs in male infertility. The existing guidelines for genetic testing in male infertility cases are based on studies published 25 years ago, and an update is far overdue. The identification of 104 high-probability 'human male infertility genes' is a 33% increase from the number identified in 2019. The insights generated in the current review will provide the impetus for an update of existing guidelines, will inform novel evidence-based genetic testing strategies used in clinics, and will identify gaps in our knowledge of male infertility genetics. We discuss the relevant international guidelines regarding research related to gene discovery and provide specific recommendations to the field of male infertility. Based on our findings, the IMIGC consortium recommend several updates to the genetic testing standards currently employed in the field of human male infertility, most important being the adoption of exome sequencing, or at least sequencing of the genes validated in this study, and expanding the patient groups for which genetic testing is recommended.

Andrological findings in infertile men with two (biallelic) CFTR mutations: results of a multicentre study in Germany and Austria comprising 71 patients

STUDY QUESTION

When should cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) mutation analysis be recommended in infertile men based on andrological findings?

SUMMARY ANSWER

CFTR mutation analysis is recommended in all men with unexplained azoospermia in the presence of normal gonadotropin levels.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

While 80-97% of men with congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens (CBAVD) are thought to carry CFTR mutations, there is uncertainty about the spectrum of clinical and andrological abnormalities in infertile men with bilallelic CFTR mutations. This information is relevant for evidence-based recommendations to couples requesting assisted reproduction.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We studied the andrological findings of patients with two CFTR mutations who were examined in one of the cooperating fertility centres in Germany and Austria. In the period of January till July 2019, the completed and anonymized data sheets of 78 adult male patients were returned to and analysed by the project leader at the Institute of Human Genetics in Innsbruck, Austria.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Minimum study entry criteria were the presence of two (biallelic) CFTR mutations and results of at least one semen analysis. Andrological assessments were undertaken by standardized data sheets and compared with normal reference values. Seventy-one patients were eligible for the study (n = 30, 42% from Germany, n = 26, 37% from Austria, n = 15, 21% other nations).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Gonadotropin levels (FSH, LH) were normal, 22% of patients had reduced testosterone values. Mean right testis volume was 23.38 ml (SD 8.77), mean left testis volume was 22.59 ml (SD 8.68) and thereby statistically increased compared to normal (P < 0.01). although the means remained in the reference range of 12-25 ml. Semen analysis revealed azoospermia in 70 of 71 (99%) patients and severe oligozoospermia <0.1 × 106/ml in one patient. Four semen parameters, i.e. ejaculate volume, pH, α-glucosidase and fructose values, were significantly reduced (P < 0.01). Only 18% of patients had a palpatory and sonographically diagnosed CBAVD, while in 31% the diagnosis of CBAVD was uncertain, in 12% patients, the vas deferens was present but hypoplastic, and in 39% the vas deferens was normally present bilaterally. Seminal vesicles were not detectable in 37% and only unilaterally present in 37% of patients. Apart from total testes volume, clinical findings were similar in patients with two confirmed pathogenic CFTR mutations (Group I) compared with patients who carried one pathogenic mutation and one CFTR variant of unknown significance (Group II).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We could not formally confirm the in trans position of genetic variants in most patients as no family members were available for segregation studies. Nonetheless, considering that most mutations in our study have been previously described without other rare variants in cis, and in view of the compatible andrological phenotype, it is reasonable to assume that the biallelic genotypes are correct.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our study reveals that CFTR mutation analysis has a broader indication than just the absence of the vas deferens. We recommend to completely sequence the CFTR gene if there is a suspicion of obstructive azoospermia, and to extend this analysis to all patients with unexplained azoospermia in the presence of normal gonadotropin levels.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

German Research Foundation Clinical Research Unit 'Male Germ Cells: from Genes to Function' (DFG CRU326, grants to F.T.). There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

["Practical spermiogram"-semen analysis according to WHO recommendations]

Semen analysis (spermiogram) is a crucial component of the diagnostic work-up of infertile patients, in cases of cryopreservation of semen for fertility protection prior to potentially gonadotoxic treatment or for the assessment of sperm quality for sperm donation. Practical semen analysis follows the recommendations of the WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human sperm. The aim of semen analysis is to characterize the fertility potential of the male, which is supplemented by clinical and endocrine investigations before a final decision on treatment options is made. Since 2014, semen analysis has been subject to the guidelines on quality assurance in laboratory diagnostics of the Federal Medical Board (Rili-BÄK). In practical terms, the detailed performance of a macroscopic and microscopic analysis of semen is decisive for valid results and subsequent treatment decisions. Additional tests can help to make a better estimation of the fertility parameters.