Male sperm quality and risk of recurrent spontaneous abortion in Chinese couples: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Association between semen parameters and recurrent pregnancy loss: An umbrella review of meta-analyses

AIM

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a common clinical reproductive problem. With research advancements, an increasing number of studies have suggested that male factors play an important role in RPL. However, the evaluation results of male sperm quality in published meta-analyses are inconsistent. We aimed to summarize the evidence of the association between semen factors and RPL and evaluate the level and validity of the evidence.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for systematic reviews or meta-analyses to evaluate the association between male semen parameters and RPL. The methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was assessed, and data and evidence were re-synthesized and stratified using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven meta-analyses and nine semen parameters were included in the final analysis. The methodological quality of all publications was considered low or very low. There was highly suggestive evidence for the association between sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), sperm progressive motility rate, and RPL (class II). The evidence level for the association between sperm concentration, normal sperm morphology, sperm deformity rate, total motility, and RPL was suggestive evidence (class III). The evidence level for the association between sperm volume and sperm count and RPL was weak (class IV). There was no significant association between sperm pH and RPL (class NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest level II evidence for the association between male SDF and RPL, while the evidence level for the association between conventional semen routine parameters and RPL was low (classes III and IV).

Sperm DNA fragmentation in male infertility: From bench to bedside

Objectives

Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is a molecular marker of sperm chromatin health. Elevated SDF is associated with male infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, and failure of assisted reproductive technologies (ART). In 2021, the sixth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) Manual for the Laboratory Examination and Processing of Human Semen has listed SDF as an extended test of semen that can be ordered under certain circumstances. However, the manual neither explained the indications for testing nor provided clear guidance on diagnostic thresholds.

Methods

This article summarizes the current body of knowledge regarding clinical applications of SDF, including the appropriate population to test, methods of testing, and management strategies.

Results

Several etiologic factors and pathophysiologic mechanisms for SDF have been described including poor lifestyle habits, noxious exposures, and varicocele. Four SDF assays are included in the WHO manual and may be utilized based on resources and expertise. Strategies to lower SDF levels in infertile men include addressing underlying causes, supplementation with antioxidants, shorter abstinence periods, and use of testicular sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Conclusion

SDF testing can be implemented in the evaluation of infertile men and couples experiencing ART failure and appropriate management strategies can be offered to improve reproductive outcomes. There is vast potential for future research regarding the clinical utility of SDF in the evaluation and treatment of infertile couples.

Sperm DNA fragmentation and idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss: Results from a multicenter case-control study

BACKGROUND

Sperm DNA fragmentation was hypothesized to have a role in the pathogenesis of recurrent pregnancy loss. Unfortunately, the quality of already published evidence is low.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between sperm DNA fragmentation and idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss by limiting, as much as possible, the interference of confounding factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective multicenter case-control study conducted in two Italian University Hospitals (i.e., Policlinico Gemelli, Rome and Humanitas S. Pio X, Milan) from July 2020 to March 2022. Cases were men belonging to couples affected by first trimester idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss, defined as the previous loss of two or more pregnancies. Two control groups were selected: (i) men belonging to couples with proven fertility (i.e., at least two previous full-term pregnancies) (control group A); (ii) men belonging to couples with proven infertility (i.e., the failure to achieve a pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse) (control group B). The sperm DNA fragmentation index was measured by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling assay.

RESULTS

We included 74 cases, 37 men with proven fertility (control group A) and 100 men belonging to infertile couples (control group B). The median sperm DNA fragmentation index was significantly lower in control group A (17%, interquartile range: 14.3%-20.6%) compared to both case group (24.5%, interquartile range: 17%-32%; p < 0.0001) and control group B (24%, interquartile range: 18.9%-30%; p = 0.001). The rate of subjects with sperm DNA fragmentation index greater than 30% was significantly higher in both case groups (28%, 95% confidence interval [18%-40%]) and control group B (26%, 95% confidence interval [18%, 36%]) compared to control group A (0%, 95% confidence interval [0%-10%]) (p < 0.001). Multivariate regression models yielded a significant association between sperm DNA fragmentation index and recurrent pregnancy loss (adjusted odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval [1.04-1.23], p = 0.006), but failed to show an association between sperm DNA fragmentation index and infertility (adjusted odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI [1-1.29], p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Men within couples affected by recurrent pregnancy loss or infertility had a significantly higher rate of sperm DNA fragmentation compared to fertile controls. However, after adjusting for covariates, sperm DNA fragmentation index was associated only with recurrent pregnancy loss.

Recurrent pregnancy loss: a male crucial factor-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), defined as two or more failed clinical pregnancies, affects 1%-3% of couples trying to conceive. Nowadays up to 50% of cases remain idiopathic. In this context, paternal factors evaluation is still very limited. The aim is to address the topic of the male factor in RPL with a broad approach, analyzing collectively data on sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) and semen parameters. We systematically searched in Pubmed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar from inception to February 2023. A protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (ID number CRD42022278616). PRISMA guidelines were followed.

METHODS

Pooled results from 20 studies revealed a higher DNA fragmentation rate in the RPL group compared to controls (mean difference [MD] 9.21, 95% CI 5.58-12.85, p < 0.00001, I2 98%). Age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and alcohol intake were not associated with DNA fragmentation. Subgroup analysis by different SDF assays (TUNEL and COMET at a neutral pH vs. indirect assessment with other assays) and ethnicity did not highlight different results (p = 0.25 and 0.44).

RESULTS

Results pooled from 25 studies showed a significant difference comparing RPL and control groups regarding ejaculation volume (MD -0.24, 95% CI -0.43; -0.06, p 0.01, I2 66%), total sperm number (MD -10.03, 95% CI -14.65; -5.41, p < 0.0001, I2 76%), total sperm motility (MD -11.20, 95% CI -16.15; -6.25, p < 0.0001, I2 96%), progressive sperm motility (MD -7.34, 95% CI -10.87; -3.80, p < 0.0001, I2 97%), and normal sperm morphology (MD -5.99, 95% CI -9.08; -2.90, p 0.0001, I2 98%). A sub-analysis revealed that Asian and Africans, but not white-European RPL men had lower progressive sperm motility compared to controls.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, current review and meta-analysis findings suggested that SDF and some specific semen parameters were associated with RPL in a multi-ethnic evaluation. This effort opens future direction on a growing awareness of, first, how the male factor plays a key role and, second, how appropriate would be to establish a direct dialogue between the gynecologist and the urologist.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the male component of RPL. We found that sperm DNA fragmentation and some specific sperm parameters are significantly associated with RPL.

The natural cycle protocol of endometrial preparation for frozen embryo transfer decreases the miscarriage rate in women with recurrent pregnancy loss

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether different endometrial preparation methods lead to different results.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENTS

Women with recurrent pregnancy loss undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET).

INTERVENTIONS

Natural cycle (NC) protocol (n = 111) with no drug or human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) used for endometrial preparation, vs. the hormone replacement therapy (HRT) protocol (n = 797) with estrogen or gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) plus estrogen used for endometrial preparation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Miscarriage rate and live birth rate (LBR).

RESULTS

Compared to women in the HRT protocol, women undergoing NCs had fewer previous FET cycles, lower antral follicle counts (AFCs), fewer oocytes retrieved and a thicker endometrium on the day of progesterone administration. Women in the HRT group had a higher miscarriage rate (29.4% vs. 17.2%) and a lower LBR (37% vs. 46.9%) than the rates of women in the NC group. Univariate analysis showed that female age also had a negative association with the miscarriage rate. Logistic regression indicated that endometrial preparation using the NC protocol was linked to a decreased likelihood of miscarriage.

CONCLUSIONS

The NC protocol decreased the miscarriage rate and increased the LBR for patients with recurrent pregnancy loss compared with the HRT protocol.

ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss: an update in 2022

STUDY QUESTION

What are the updates for the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature from 2017 to 2022?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The guideline development group (GDG) updated 11 existing recommendations on investigations and treatments for RPL, and how care should be organized, and added one new recommendation on adenomyosis investigation in women with RPL.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A previous ESHRE guideline on RPL was published in 2017 and needs to be updated.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

The guideline was developed and updated according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. The literature searches were updated, and assessments of relevant new evidence were performed. Relevant papers published between 31 March 2017 and 28 February 2022 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate, and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were updated and discussed until consensus was reached within the GDG. A stakeholder review was organized after the updated draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The new version of the guideline provides 39 recommendations on risk factors, prevention, and investigation in couples with RPL, and 38 recommendations on treatments. These includes 62 evidence-based recommendations-of which 33 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional-and 15 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, 12 (19.4%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (34 recommendations; 54.8%), or very low-quality evidence (16 recommendations; 25.8%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions those investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

The guidelines have been updated; however, several investigations and treatments currently offered to couples with RPL have not been well studied; for most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against using the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best and most recent evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. Still, the absence of a unified definition of RPL is one of the most critical consequences of the limited scientific evidence in the field.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment.O.B.C. reports being a member of the executive board of the European Society for Reproductive Immunology and has received payment for honoraria for giving lectures about RPL in Australia in 2020. M.G. reports unconditional research and educational grant received by the Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring, not related to the presented work. S.L. reports position funding from EXAMENLAB Ltd. and ownership interest by stock or partnership of EXAMENLAB Ltd (CEO). S.Q. reports being a deputy director of Tommy's National centre for miscarriage research, with payment received by the institution for research, staff time, and consumables for research. H.S.N. reports grants with payment to institution from Freya Biosciences ApS, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, BioInnovation Institute, the Danish ministry of Education, Novo Nordic Foundation, Augustinus Fonden, Oda og Hans Svenningsens Fond, Demant Fonden, Ole Kirks Fond, and Independent Research Fund Denmark and speakers' fees for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Astra Zeneca, IBSA Nordic and Cook Medical. She also reports to be an unpaid founder and chairman of a maternity foundation. M.-L.v.d.H. received small honoraria for lectures on RPL care. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained.Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

Sperm DNA integrity and male infertility: a narrative review and guide for the reproductive physicians

Background and Objective

Conventional semen analysis (SA) remains an essential tool in the initial male fertility evaluation and subsequent follow-up. However, it neither provides information about the functional status of spermatozoa nor addresses disorders such as idiopathic or unexplained infertility (UI). Recently, assessment of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) has been proposed as an extended sperm test that may help overcome these inherent limitations of basic SA. In this review, we aim to: (I) discuss the pathophysiological aspects of SDF, including natural repair mechanisms, causes, and impact on reproductive outcomes; (II) explain different assessment tools of SDF, and describe potential therapeutic options to manage infertile men with high SDF; and (III) analyse the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of current research on the topic.

Methods

This review was constructed from original studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that were published over the years up until August 2021, related to the various aspects of SDF.

Key Content and Findings

Different mechanisms lead to high SDF, including defective chromatin packaging, apoptosis, and seminal oxidative stress. The relevance of sperm DNA integrity to male fertility/infertility has been supported by the frequent observation of high levels of SDF in infertile men, and in association with risk factors for infertility. Additionally, high SDF levels have been inversely correlated with the outcomes of natural pregnancy and assisted reproduction. Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labelling, sperm chromatin structure assay, sperm chromatin dispersion, and Comet assay are four commonly used assays for measurement of SDF. Addressing lifestyle risks and underlying conditions, antioxidants, hormonal therapy, and advanced sperm selection techniques have all been proposed as potential therapeutic options to lower SDF.

Conclusions

The sum of literature provides evidence of detrimental effects of high SDF on both natural and assisted fertility outcomes. Standardization of the techniques used for assessment of SDF and their incorporation into the work up of infertile couples may have significant implications on the future management of a selected category of infertile men with high SDF.

Getah Virus Infection Rapidly Causes Testicular Damage and Decreases Sperm Quality in Male Mice

Getah virus (GETV) is a zoonotic arbovirus that can cause infection in many animals. It can cause pyrexia and reproductive losses in animals. The objective of the study was to explore the effects of GETV on male reproductive ability. Male mice were injected with 100 × TCID50/0.1 ml in a volume of 100-μL GETV in their hindquarter muscle, resulting in decreased semen quality and testicular histopathological changes, and the virus was detected in the testes. At 0.5 dpi (day post-infection), male mice showed decreased sperm density, motility, and decreased serum testosterone concentration, an increased sperm malformation rate, vacuoles in spermatogonial cells/spermatocytes in spermatogenic tubules, and the highest virus copies in testis. At 2 dpi, the sperm density and motility reached the lowest value of 3.99 × 106/ml and 62.03%, and the malformation rate reached 43.67%. At 28 dpi, the sperm indexes of the experimental group gradually approached that of the control group, but there were still significant differences. Since then, histopathological changes have worsened, with the most severe histopathological changes at 7 dpi and gradual recovery. Up to 14 dpi, the virus was detected by qRT-PCR and immunohistochemistry, which showed that the virus was only present in the testicular interstitium. GETV infection can rapidly enter the testis of mice and reduce the semen quality of mice, which needs to be paid attention to in the prevention and control of GETV.