Risk of chromosomal aberration in spermatozoa during intracytoplasmic sperm injection

Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Versus In vitro Fertilization in Infertile Women with Thyroid Autoimmunity

Background: It has been reported that intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) may be the preferred fertilization method for women with thyroid autoimmunity (TAI) seeking assisted reproduction. We compared the reproductive outcomes of women with TAI who were treated with ICSI compared with in vitro fertilization (IVF). Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we included women with infertility who were referred to the Reproductive Centre of Peking University Third Hospital for their first IVF/ICSI and embryo transfer (ET) treatment cycle from January 2019 to February 2021. In total, 2171 and 743 women with TAI underwent IVF and ICSI, respectively, while 8702 and 2668 women without TAI underwent IVF and ICSI, respectively. We examined the cumulative live birth rate (primary outcome) from the initiated stimulative cycle as well as the secondary outcomes of fertilization rate, rates of clinical pregnancy, and live birth after the first ET cycle. We compared the reproductive outcomes of women treated with IVF and ICSI according to TAI status. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to adjust for relevant confounders. Results: Women who underwent ICSI had significantly higher fertilization rates than those who underwent IVF (median [interquartile range]: 0.6 [0.5-0.8] in the TAI-positive and IVF group vs. 0.7 [0.5-0.8] in the TAI-positive and ICSI group vs. 0.6 [0.5-0.8] the TAI-negative and IVF group vs. 0.7 [0.5-0.8] in the TAI-negative and ICSI group, p < 0.001). However, the rates of cumulative live births, clinical pregnancies, and live births were significantly lower among women with TAI who underwent ICSI than those who underwent IVF (cumulative live birth: 51.8% vs. 47%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.80 [confidence interval, CI: 0.67-0.97]; clinical pregnancy: 43.0% vs. 38.8%, aOR: 0.81 [CI: 0.67-0.97]; live birth: 36.2% vs. 32.4%, aOR: 0.81 [CI: 0.66-0.98]). Conclusion: We observed that the use of ICSI in women with TAI was not associated with better assisted reproductive outcomes compared with IVF. Further prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm our findings.

Reproductive Outcomes of Conventional In Vitro Fertilization and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Patients with Non-Severe Male Infertility Across Poor and Different Sub-Optimal Ovarian Response Categories: A Cohort Study Based on 30,352 Fresh Cycles from 2009-2019

Due to the influence of economic, social and many other factors, there are more and more reproductive problems. Originally introduced for managing male factor infertility, intracytoplasmic sperm injection had become the most commonly used fertilization treatment in the world, with broadened indications including low oocyte yield, prior fertilization failure with conventional in vitro fertilization etc. However, academic evidence for better live-birth outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection over conventional in vitro fertilization is limited. Thus, we aimed to compare the reproductive outcomes of conventional in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with non-severe male factor infertility across poor and different sub-optimal ovarian response categories. The fertility rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate and other obstetric outcomes were mainly compared. Our results showed that independent of the number of oocytes retrieved, intracytoplasmic sperm injection significantly increased the fertilization rate, while conventional in vitro fertilization cycles showed a higher implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate. No differences were observed in most obstetric outcomes. Our study indicates that poor ovarian response is not an indication for intracytoplasmic sperm injection in couples with non-severe male infertility.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation for couples with infertility with non-severe male factor: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Introduced in 1992, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was initially indicated for severe male infertility; however, its use has since been expanded to non-severe male infertility. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ICSI versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) in couples with infertility with non-severe male factor.

METHODS

We conducted an investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in ten reproductive medicine centres across China. Couples with infertility with non-severe male factor without a history of poor fertilisation were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either ICSI or conventional IVF. The primary outcome was live birth after first embryo transfer. We performed the primary analysis in the intention-to-treat population using log-binomial regression models for categorical outcomes or linear regression models for continuous outcomes, adjusting for centre. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03298633, and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between April 4, 2018, and Nov 15, 2021, 3879 couples were screened, of whom 2387 (61·5%) couples were randomly assigned (1184 [49·6%] to the ICSI group and 1203 [50·4%] to the conventional IVF group). After excluding couples who were ineligible, randomised twice, or withdrew consent, 1154 (97·5%) in the ICSI group and 1175 (97·7%) in the conventional IVF group were included in the primary analysis. Live birth after first embryo transfer occurred in 390 (33·8%) couples in the ICSI group and in 430 (36·6%) couples in the conventional IVF group (adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·92 [95% CI 0·83-1·03]; p=0·16). Two (0·2%) neonatal deaths were reported in the ICSI group and one (0·1%) in the conventional IVF group.

INTERPRETATION

In couples with infertility with non-severe male factor, ICSI did not improve live birth rate compared with conventional IVF. Given that ICSI is an invasive procedure associated with additional costs and potential increased risks to offspring health, routine use is not recommended in this population.

FUNDING

National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Key Research and Development Program, Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, and Peking University Third Hospital.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not superior to conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A)

STUDY QUESTION

Does the insemination method impact the euploidy outcome in couples with non-male factor infertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Conventional IVF can be applied in cycles with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A), as both IVF and ICSI generate equal numbers of euploid blastocysts.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Ever since its introduction, the popularity of ICSI has increased tremendously, even in couples with non-male factor infertility. The use of conventional IVF is a contraindication for couples undergoing PGT to ensure monospermic fertilisation and to eliminate potential paternal contamination from extraneous sperm attached to the zona pellucida. Despite this, it has recently been shown that sperm DNA fails to amplify under the conditions used for trophectoderm biopsy samples.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This single-centre prospective pilot study included 30 couples between November 2018 and April 2019.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHOD

Arab couples, with a female age between 18-40 years, body mass index ≤30 kg/m2, at least 10 cumulus oocyte complexes (COCs) following oocyte retrieval (OR) and normal semen concentration and motility (WHO) in the fresh ejaculate on the day of OR, were eligible for the study. Half of the sibling oocytes were assigned to conventional IVF, and the other half were assigned to ICSI. All embryos were cultured in a time-lapse imaging system in Global Total LP media. Blastocysts were subjected to trophectoderm biopsy on Day 5, 6 or 7 and next-generation sequencing (NGS) to determine blastocyst ploidy status. The primary objective was to determine the euploid rate in blastocysts from sibling oocytes.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 568 COCs were randomly allocated between IVF (n = 283; 9.4 ± 4.0) and ICSI (n = 285; 9.5 ± 4.1). While the incidence of normal fertilisation per cycle (6.1 ± 3.8 (64.0%) vs 6.3 ± 3.5 (65.4%); P = 0.609) was distributed equally between IVF and ICSI, the degeneration rate (0.1 ± 0.3 vs 0.7 ± 0.8; P = 0.0003) was significantly higher after ICSI and the incidence of abnormal fertilisation (≥3 pronuclei) was significantly higher after IVF (0.9 ± 1.2 vs 0.2 ± 0.4; P = 0.005). For all fertilised oocytes, there were no differences in the number of good-quality embryos on Day 3 (74% vs 78%; P = 0.467), nor in the blastulation rate on Day 5 (80.4% vs 70.8%; P = 0.076). The total number of blastocysts biopsied per cycle on Days 5, 6 and 7 was not significantly different between IVF or ICSI (4.0 ± 2.8 vs 3.9 ± 2.5; P = 0.774). With euploid rates of 49.8 and 44.1% (P = 0.755; OR: 1.05664 [0.75188-1.48494), respectively, there was no significant difference identified between IVF and ICSI (2.0 ± 1.8 vs 1.9 ± 1.7; P = 0.808) and all couples had at least one euploid blastocyst available for transfer. When considering only euploid blastocysts, the male/female ratio was 61/39 in IVF and 43/57 in ICSI (P = 0.063).

LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION

This is a pilot study with a limited patient population of 30 couples (and 568 COCs) with a normal ovarian response. The results of our study should not be extrapolated to other patient populations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

It is safe to apply conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility undergoing PGT-A.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No funding was obtained. There are no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03708991.

Interspecific ICSI for the Assessment of Sperm DNA Damage: Technology Report

Xenogenic mammalian sperm heads injected into mouse ovulated oocytes decondense and form pronuclei in which sperm DNA parameters can be evaluated. We suggest that this approach can be used for the assessment of sperm DNA damage level and the evaluation of how certain sperm treatments (freezing, lyophilization, etc.) influence the quality of spermatozoa.

The effect of ICSI in infertility couples with non-male factor: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature to investigate the efficacy of the intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in couples with non-male factor with respect to the clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The literature search was based on EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. All studies published after 1992 until February 2020 and written in English addressing patients in the presence of normal semen parameters subjected to ICSI and in vitro fertilization (IVF) were eligible. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched for additional studies. The primary outcomes were fertilization rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and implantation rate; the secondary outcomes were good-quality embryo rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate.

RESULTS

Four RCTs and twenty-two cohort studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. Collectively, a meta-analysis of the outcomes in RCTs showed that compared to IVF, ICSI has no obvious advantage in fertilization rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.83-1.62), clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.66-1.64), implantation rate (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.67-1.86), and live birth rate (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.43-3.15). Pooled results of cohort studies demonstrated a statistically significant higher fertilization rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.03-1.31) and miscarriage rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.06) in the ICSI group; furthermore, higher clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.94), implantation rate (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95), and live birth rate (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.94) was founded in the IVF group; no statistically significant difference was observed in good-quality embryo rate (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93-1.04).

CONCLUSION

ICSI has no obvious advantage in patients with normal semen parameters. Enough information is still not available to prove the efficacy of ICSI in couples with non-male factor infertility comparing to IVF.

Use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in normospermic men may result in lower clinical pregnancy and live birth rates

BACKGROUND

While intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was developed for overcoming male infertility, it is increasingly being used for non-male factor indications, without consensus regarding the safety and efficacy of this approach.

AIMS

To determine whether ICSI offers any benefit compared to standard in vitro fertilisation (IVF), in the setting of normal semen parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of reproductive outcomes in 3363 stimulated cycles (IVF = 1661; ICSI = 1702), in patients treated between 2009-2015, was performed. Selected couples had no male factor infertility. Couples with abnormal semen parameters (based on WHO 2010 guidelines), presence of anti-sperm antibodies and low oocyte yield of ≤4 oocytes, were excluded. The outcomes analysed included: (1) fertilisation rate (FR); (2) clinical pregnancy rate (CPR); and (3) live birth rate (LBR), by method of fertilisation used (IVF vs ICSI) and controlling for significant confounders.

RESULTS

FR, CPR and LBR were significantly higher in the IVF group compared with ICSI (67.1% vs 62.3%, 23.06% vs 16.8%, 17.22% vs 13.2%, respectively). Pregnancy rate with ICSI was approximately 30% lower than with IVF, even when controlling for significant factors such as day of embryo transfer and number of embryos transferred. This translates to one less pregnancy in every 15 cycles where ICSI was used without clear indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that ICSI may be detrimental to clinical outcomes and contributes to the wider understanding of use of ICSI in normospermic men.