Assessing the male in fertility clinics-men undervalued, undermanaged and undertreated

An ICSI rate of 90% minimizes complete failed fertilization and provides satisfactory implantation rates without elevating fetal abnormalities

IVF cycles utilizing the ICSI technique for fertilization have been rising over the 25 years since its introduction, with indications now extending beyond male factor infertility. We have performed ICSI for 87% of cases compared with the ANZARD average of 67%. This retrospective study reports on the outcomes of 1547 autologous ART treatments undertaken over a recent 3-year period. Based on various indications, cases were managed within 3 groupings - IVF Only, ICSI Only or IVF-ICSI Split insemination where oocytes were randomly allocated. Overall 567 pregnancies arose from mostly single embryo transfer procedures up to December 2016, with 402 live births, comprising 415 infants and a low fetal abnormality rate (1.9%) was recorded. When the data was adjusted for confounders such as maternal age, measures of ovarian reserve and sperm quality, it appeared that IVF-generated and ICSI-generated embryos had a similar chance of both pregnancy and live birth. In the IVF-ICSI Split model, significantly more ICSI-generated embryos were utilised (2.5 vs 1.8; p < 0.003) with productivity rates of 67.8% for pregnancy and 43.4% for livebirths per OPU for this group. We conclude that ART clinics should apply the insemination method which will maximize embryo numbers and the first treatment for unexplained infertility should be undertaken within the IVF-ICSI Split model. Whilst ICSI-generated pregnancies are reported to have a higher rate of fetal abnormalities, our data is consistent with the view that the finding is not due to the ICSI technique per se.

A Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis on the clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing in specific male infertility scenarios

Background

Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is recognized as a leading cause of male infertility because it can impair the paternal genome through distinct pathophysiological mechanisms. Current evidence supports SDF as a major factor in the pathophysiology of several conditions, including varicocele, unexplained infertility, assisted reproductive technology failure, and environmental lifestyle factors, although the mechanisms involved have not been fully described yet. Measurement of the levels of DNA fragmentation in semen provides valuable information on the integrity of paternal chromatin and may guide therapeutic strategies. A recently published clinical practice guideline (CPG) highlighted how to use the information provided by SDF testing in daily practice, which triggered a series of commentaries by leading infertility experts. These commentaries contained an abundance of information and conflicting views about the clinical utility of SDF testing, which underline the complex nature of SDF.

Methods

A search of papers published in response to the CPG entitled “Clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing: practice recommendations based on clinical scenarios” was performed within the Translational Andrology and Urology (TAU) website (http://tau.amegroups.com/). The start and end dates for the search were May 2017 and August 2017, respectively. Each commentary meeting our inclusion criteria was rated as “supportive without reservation”, “supportive with reservation”, “not supportive” or “neutral”. We recorded whether articles discussed either SDF characteristics as a laboratory test method or clinical scenarios, or both. Subsequently, we extracted the particulars from each commentary and utilized the ‘Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats’ (SWOT) analysis to understand the perceived advantages and drawbacks of SDF as a specialized sperm function method in clinical practice.

Results

Fifty-eight fertility experts from six continents and twenty-two countries contributed commentaries. Overall, participants (87.9%; n=51) were supportive of the recommendations provided by the CPG on the utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios. The majority of participants made explicit remarks about both the clinical scenarios and SDF assays’ characteristics. Among ‘not supportive’ and ‘supportive with reservation’ participants, 75% (n=30/40) and 77.5% (n=31/40) expressed concerns related to technical limitations of SDF testing methods and clinical utility of the test in one or more clinical scenarios discussed in the CPG, respectively. The SWOT analysis revealed that the CPG provides a reasonable evidence-based proposal for integration of SDF testing in the routine daily practice. It also uncovered gaps of knowledge and threats limiting the widespread application of SDF in everyday practice, thus allowing the identification of opportunities to further refine SDF testing and its clinical utility.

Conclusions

The understanding of the role of SDF in male infertility requires an in-depth analysis of the multifactorial pathophysiological processes and the theories involved. The SWOT analysis allowed an objective evaluation of CPG on the clinical utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios and its accompanying commentaries written by global experts in all possible angles. Implementation of SDF testing in the clinic may not only increase the outcome of ART but more importantly improve the health of both fathers to be and resulting offspring.