Live birth and miscarriage rate following intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection vs intracytoplasmic sperm injection: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

First-line infertility treatment in normal or subnormal sperm: Interest of a simplified pre-IMSI test

BACKGROUND

In the field of male infertility, when sperm is normal/subnormal, a few "add-on" routine tests can complete the basic semen examination.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a faster, simplified motile sperm organelle morphology examination (MSOME) technique for selected infertile patients with apparently normal/subnormal sperm and, in their background: failure of two or three intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles, repeatedly fragmented embryos, embryonic development to blastocyst-stage failures, repeated miscarriages, a long period of infertility or 2 or more IVF attempts without pregnancy. Our test results were correlated with IUI, conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We validated an adapted version of the MSOME analysis called the pre-IMSI test (PIT), based on vacuole evaluation alone. 248 infertile patients from our assisted reproductive technology (ART) Center were retrospectively selected and split into three PIT score subgroups (patients with ≤8% (score I), 9 to 15% (score II) and ≥16% normal spermatozoa (score III)) based on the correlation between PIT results and each ART technique outcome. The choice of one or another of these ART techniques had been made according to the usual clinico-biological criteria.

RESULTS

Clinical outcomes for each of the three PIT subgroups were compared individually for the different ART techniques. For ICSI, the effect of the PIT score subgroup was significant for clinical pregnancies (p = 0.0054) and presented a trend for live births (p = 0.0614). Miscarriage rates of IVF attempts were statistically different depending on the PIT score (p = 0.0348). Furthermore, the odds ratios of clinical pregnancy rates were significantly different according to PIT score subgroup when comparing ICSI vs. IMSI or IVF vs. ICSI attempts.

DISCUSSION

IMSI appears to be recommended when sperm belongs to PIT score I, ICSI when it belongs to PIT score II and IVF or IUI when sperm is of PIT score III quality in selected infertile couples. The lack of statistical power in these PIT subgroups means that we must remain cautious in interpreting results.

CONCLUSION

Our results support the interest of this simplified test for certain couples with normal/subnormal sperm to help choose the most efficient ART technique, even as first-line treatment.

Emerging trends in sperm selection: enhancing success rates in assisted reproduction

This comprehensive review explores the evolving landscape of sperm selection techniques within the realm of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). Our analysis delves into a range of methods from traditional approaches like density gradient centrifugation to advanced techniques such as Magnetic-Activated Cell Sorting (MACS) and Intracytoplasmic Morphologically Selected Sperm Injection (IMSI). We critically assess the efficacy of these methods in terms of sperm motility, morphology, DNA integrity, and other functional attributes, providing a detailed comparison of their clinical outcomes. We highlight the transition from conventional sperm selection methods, which primarily focus on physical characteristics, to more sophisticated techniques that offer a comprehensive evaluation of sperm molecular properties. This shift not only promises enhanced prediction of fertilization success but also has significant implications for improving embryo quality and increasing the chances of live birth. By synthesizing various studies and research papers, we present an in-depth analysis of the predictability of different sperm selection procedures in ART. The review also discusses the clinical applicability of these methods, emphasizing their potential in shaping the future of assisted reproduction. Our findings suggest that the integration of advanced sperm selection strategies in ART could lead to more cost-effective treatments with reduced duration and higher success rates. This review aims to provide clinicians and researchers in reproductive medicine with comprehensive insights into the current state and future prospects of sperm selection technologies in ART.

Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†

STUDY QUESTION

Which add-ons are safe and effective to be used in ART treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Forty-two recommendations were formulated on the use of add-ons in the diagnosis of fertility problems, the IVF laboratory and clinical management of IVF treatment.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The innovative nature of ART combined with the extremely high motivation of the patients has opened the door to the wide application of what has become known as 'add-ons' in reproductive medicine. These supplementary options are available to patients in addition to standard fertility procedures, typically incurring an additional cost. A diverse array of supplementary options is made available, encompassing tests, drugs, equipment, complementary or alternative therapies, laboratory procedures, and surgical interventions. These options share the common aim of stating to enhance pregnancy or live birth rates, mitigate the risk of miscarriage, or expedite the time to achieving pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

ESHRE aimed to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations focusing on the safety and efficacy of add-ons currently used in fertility procedures in order to improve the quality of care for patients with infertility.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

ESHRE appointed a European multidisciplinary working group consisting of practising clinicians, embryologists, and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of infertility. Patient representatives were included in the working group. To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, recommendations were based on the professional experience and consensus of the working group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 46 independent international reviewers. A total of 272 comments were received and incorporated where relevant.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The multidisciplinary working group formulated 42 recommendations in three sections; diagnosis and diagnostic tests, laboratory tests and interventions, and clinical management.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Of the 42 recommendations, none could be based on high-quality evidence and only four could be based on moderate-quality evidence, implicating that 95% of the recommendations are supported only by low-quality randomized controlled trials, observational data, professional experience, or consensus of the development group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These guidelines offer valuable direction for healthcare professionals who are responsible for the care of patients undergoing ART treatment for infertility. Their purpose is to promote safe and effective ART treatment, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on realistic expectations. The guidelines aim to ensure that patients are fully informed about the various treatment options available to them and the likelihood of any additional treatment or test to improve the chance of achieving a live birth.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESHRE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. K.L. reports speakers fees from Merck and was part of a research study by Vitrolife (unpaid). T.E. reports consulting fees from Gynemed, speakers fees from Gynemed and is part of the scientific advisory board of Hamilton Thorne. N.P.P. reports grants from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare, speakers fees from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare. S.R.H. declares being managing director of Fertility Europe, a not-for-profit organization receiving financial support from ESHRE. I.S. is a scientific advisor for and has stock options from Alife Health, is co-founder of IVFvision LTD (unpaid) and received speakers' fee from the 2023 ART Young Leader Prestige workshop in China. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck A/S, consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos and Merck A/S, speakers fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Theramex and Organon, travel fees from Gedeon Richter. The other authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPRs) 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 bedeemedinclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results.Theydo 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.

IMSI—Guidelines for Sperm Quality Assessment

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is a widely used and accepted treatment of choice for oocyte fertilization. However, the quality of sperm selection depends on the accurate visualization of the morphology, which can be achieved with a high image resolution. We aim to correct the conviction, shown in a myriad of publications, that an ultra-high magnification in the range of 6000×–10,000× can be achieved with an optical microscope. The goal of observing sperm under the microscope is not to simply get a larger image, but rather to obtain more detail—therefore, we indicate that the optical system’s resolution is what should be primarily considered. We provide specific microscope system setup recommendations sufficient for most clinical cases that are based on our experience showing that the optical resolution of 0.5 μm allows appropriate visualization of sperm defects. Last but not least, we suggest that mixed research results regarding the clinical value of IMSI, comparing to ICSI, can stem from a lack of standardization of microscopy techniques used for both ICSI and IMSI.

OUP accepted manuscript

BACKGROUND

Oocyte activation deficiency (OAD) is attributed to the majority of cases underlying failure of ICSI cycles, the standard treatment for male factor infertility. Oocyte activation encompasses a series of concerted events, triggered by sperm-specific phospholipase C zeta (PLCζ), which elicits increases in free cytoplasmic calcium (Ca²⁺) in spatially and temporally specific oscillations. Defects in this specific pattern of Ca²⁺ release are directly attributable to most cases of OAD. Ca²⁺ release can be clinically mediated via assisted oocyte activation (AOA), a combination of mechanical, electrical and/or chemical stimuli which artificially promote an increase in the levels of intra-cytoplasmic Ca²⁺. However, concerns regarding safety and efficacy underlie potential risks that must be addressed before such methods can be safely widely used.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

Recent advances in current AOA techniques warrant a review of the safety and efficacy of these practices, to determine the extent to which AOA may be implemented in the clinic. Importantly, the primary challenges to obtaining data on the safety and efficacy of AOA must be determined. Such questions require urgent attention before widespread clinical utilization of such protocols can be advocated.

SEARCH METHODS

A literature review was performed using databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, etc. using AOA, OAD, calcium ionophores, ICSI, PLCζ, oocyte activation, failed fertilization and fertilization failure as keywords. Relevant articles published until June 2019 were analysed and included in the review, with an emphasis on studies assessing large-scale efficacy and safety.

OUTCOMES

Contradictory studies on the safety and efficacy of AOA do not yet allow for the establishment of AOA as standard practice in the clinic. Heterogeneity in study methodology, inconsistent sample inclusion criteria, non-standardized outcome assessments, restricted sample size and animal model limitations render AOA strictly experimental. The main scientific concern impeding AOA utilization in the clinic is the non-physiological method of Ca²⁺ release mediated by most AOA agents, coupled with a lack of holistic understanding regarding the physiological mechanism(s) underlying Ca²⁺ release at oocyte activation.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The number of studies with clinical relevance using AOA remains significantly low. A much wider range of studies examining outcomes using multiple AOA agents are required.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

In addition to addressing the five main challenges of studies assessing AOA safety and efficacy, more standardized, large-scale, multi-centre studies of AOA, as well as long-term follow-up studies of children born from AOA, would provide evidence for establishing AOA as a treatment for infertility. The delivery of an activating agent that can more accurately recapitulate physiological fertilization, such as recombinant PLCζ, is a promising prospect for the future of AOA. Further to PLCζ, many other avenues of physiological oocyte activation also require urgent investigation to assess other potential physiological avenues of AOA.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

D.G. was supported by Stanford University’s Bing Overseas Study Program. J.K. was supported by a Healthcare Research Fellowship Award (HF-14-16) made by Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW), alongside a National Science, Technology, and Innovation plan (NSTIP) project grant (15-MED4186-20) awarded by the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST). The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Impact of Intracytoplasmic Morphologically Selected Sperm Injection (IMSI) on Birth Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

It is generally accepted that the incidence of birth defects in spontaneously conceived children ranges between 2.0-4.0%. However, several studies have shown that babies born after assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures tend to present more congenital malformations than naturally conceived children, with 6.5% of the children born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) presenting birth defects. The use of high magnification sperm selection before ICSI was introduced in the early 2000s to allow the identification of spermatozoa with low risk of sperm DNA damage. Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) is expected to change the incidence of congenital malformations, although data on the incidence of birth defects in children conceived after IMSI are still scarce.

METHODS

A systematic review based on searches performed in electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) including articles published by February 2021 was conducted to identify trials comparing the neonatal outcomes of ICSI and IMSI. The outcome measured was the rate of birth defects in children born after ICSI or IMSI. Three trials were included as targets for data extraction and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 3907 children conceived after IMSI (1280) or ICSI (2627). The incidence of birth defects was statistically different, with 2.5% (32/1280) in IMSI and 4.5% (119/2627) in ICSI (RR=0.59; 95% CI=0.40-0.87; p=0.007). The results demonstrated that IMSI decreased the incidence of structural defects compared to ICSI - 2.2% (18/830) vs. 3.8% (78/2049) - in a statistically significant manner (RR=0.58; 95%CI=0.35-0.96; p=0.04). No significant difference was observed in chromosomal abnormalities (Trisomy 13; 18; 21 and Triple X) between children conceived after IMSI (8/830) or ICSI (19/2049) (RR=1.07; 95%CI=0.47-2.43; p=0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

IMSI seems to be an effective tool at reducing the incidence of structural defects compared to ICSI. However, IMSI does not change the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities.

Sperm selection during ICSI treatments reduces single- but not double-strand DNA break values compared to the semen sample

PURPOSE

To detect a possible bias in sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) testing when performed on semen samples or on those few spermatozoa selected for Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) treatments.

METHODS

A multimethodological analysis of Single- and Double-Strand DNA Breaks (SSB and DSB, respectively) was performed through the Neutral Comet, the Alkaline Comet, the Sperm Chromatin Dispersion (SCD) and the Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP Nick End Labelling (TUNEL) assays. SDF was evaluated in (i) semen samples from 23 infertile patients (not achieving pregnancy or suffering recurrent miscarriage); (ii) samples after a Swim-up and (iii) spermatozoa microselected for ICSI (ICSI-S).

RESULTS

The analysis of 3217 ICSI-S revealed a significant reduction of SSB values compared to the Ejaculate and the Swim-up samples. On the contrary, DSB values were not reduced after any sperm selection method. The No-pregnancy group presented poorer semen parameters and higher SSB values. The Recurrent miscarriage group presented better semen parameters but also higher DSB values.

CONCLUSION

The analysis of SDF on semen samples may not be fully representative of those few spermatozoa selected for ICSI. Since oxidative stress impairs sperm motility and causes SSB, selecting a motile sperm may intrinsically imply choosing a sperm not affected by this damage. DSB have an enzymatic origin which does not affect motility, making it difficult to select a sperm without this damage. Therefore, ICSI treatments could be effective in patients presenting high SSB values. Patients presenting high DSB values should expect bad ICSI results if this damage is not reduced through other specific methods.

Morphokinetics of embryos after IMSI versus ICSI in couples with sub-optimal sperm quality: A time-lapse study

An investigation was conducted to determine the influence of two sperm selection modalities, IMSI and ICSI, on the morphokinetics, dynamic development and ploidy status of embryos derived from males with sub-optimal sperm profiles during IVF program. A total of 209 PGTA-tested top-quality blastocysts (IMSI = 129, ICSI = 80) from 84 couples (IMSI = 51, ICSI = 33) were assessed retrospectively. This study found that both IMSI and ICSI yielded comparable embryo morphokinetics, except for the T7, TEB and CC3 parameters (p < 0.05). A significant lower incidence of multinucleation was observed in the IMSI group when compared to the ICSI group (48.8% vs. 71.3%, p = 0.002), while other parameters of embryo development such as direct cleavage, distorted cytoplasmic movement, reverse cleavage and vacuole(s) appearance did not differ (p > 0.05). No differences were noticed in the proportion of generating chromosomally euploid embryos (44.2% vs. 51.3%, p = 0.394, respectively, for IMSI and ICSI). The implementation of IMSI or ICSI in couples with sub-optimal sperm profiles resulted in embryos with comparatively similar morphokinetics. Furthermore, the incidence of multinucleation at the two- to four-cell stage was lower following the practice of IMSI, although the method did not improve the proportion of gaining euploid embryos.

Regular (ICSI) versus ultra-high magnification (IMSI) sperm selection for assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Subfertility is a condition found in up to 15% of couples of reproductive age. Gamete micromanipulation, such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), is very useful for treating couples with compromised sperm parameters. An alternative method of sperm selection has been described; the spermatozoa are selected under high magnification (over 6000x) and used for ICSI. This technique, named intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI), has a theoretical potential to improve reproductive outcomes among couples undergoing assisted reproduction techniques (ART). However, our previous version of this Cochrane Review was unable to find evidence that supported this possible beneficial effect. This is an update of Teixeira 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To identify, appraise, and summarise the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety of IMSI compared to ICSI in couples undergoing ART.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in these electronic databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and in these trial registers: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also handsearched the reference lists of included studies and similar reviews. We performed the last electronic search on 18 November 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only considered RCTs that compared ICSI and IMSI; we did not include quasi-randomised trials. We considered studies that permitted the inclusion of the same participant more than once (cross-over or per cycle trials) only if data regarding the first treatment of each participant were available.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias and quality of the evidence; we solved disagreements by consulting a third review author. We corresponded with study investigators to resolve any queries, as required.

MAIN RESULTS

The updated search retrieved 535 records; we included 13 parallel-designed RCTs comparing IMSI and ICSI (four studies were added since the previous version), comprising 2775 couples (IMSI = 1256; ICSI = 1519). We are uncertain if IMSI improves live birth rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.39; 5 studies, 929 couples; I² = 1%), miscarriage rates per couple (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.48; 10 studies, 2297 couples; I² = 0%, very-low quality evidence), and miscarriage rate per pregnancy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20; 10 studies, 783 couples; I² = 0%, very-low quality evidence). We are uncertain if IMSI improves clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; 13 studies, 2775 couples; I² = 47%, very-low quality evidence). None of the included studies reported congenital abnormalities. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be of very low-quality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence due to limitations of the included studies (risk of bias), inconsistency of results, and a strong indication of publication bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support or refute the clinical use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI). We are very uncertain of the chances of having a live birth and of the risk of having a miscarriage. We found very low-quality evidence that IMSI may increase chances of a clinical pregnancy, which means that we are still very uncertain about any real difference. We did not find any trials reporting on the risk of congenital abnormalities. Well-designed and sufficiently powered trials are still required.