Sperm DNA fragmentation for the evaluation of male infertility: clinical algorithms

Reliability of the sperm chromatin dispersion assay to evaluate sperm deoxyribonucleic acid damage in men with infertility

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the intraindividual agreement of the sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) assay results to assess sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) in men with infertility.

DESIGN

Diagnostic test reliability study.

SETTING

Andrology laboratories.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 219 men with infertility.

INTERVENTION(S)

Sperm DNA fragmentation assessment in two ejaculates of the same subjects within a 3-month interval, using the SCD assay performed and analyzed by the same observers under similar testing conditions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Cohen's κ statistics to assess the degree of agreement between the pairs of results after converting the nominal SCD values into categorical data, that is, normal (<20%), intermediate (21%-29%), and high (≥30%) SDF rates. We also assessed the pairs of results using reliability measures for numerical variables (intraclass correlation coefficient for consistency using the two-way mixed-effects model and Bland-Altman plots).

RESULT(S)

The degree of agreement in classifying patients according to normal and pathological SDF classes was overall substantial (κ = 0.632; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.546-0.718). A total of 76.7% of individuals were classified under the same class using paired ejaculates. The agreement rate was highest (approximately 80%) in ejaculates initially classified as either normal or high and lowest (approximately 60%) among those with intermediate SDF levels. The frequency of intermediate SDF ejaculates downgraded to normal or upgrade to high SDF classes in the second test was similar (approximately 20%). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.856 (95% CI, 0.812-0.887), and the mean difference between the pairs of observations was 0.80% (95% CI, -0.72 to 2.23), indicating no systematic difference between paired observations.

CONCLUSION(S)

Our study indicates a substantial intraindividual agreement of paired SCD assay results to classify men with infertility into three SDF categories: normal, intermediate, and high. The reliability of the SCD assay was adequate and exceeded 0.80 using two ejaculates analyzed within a 3-month interval under similar conditions. Although this evidence overall supports a single SCD test for patient classification using predefined SDF thresholds, particularly when the first test shows normal or high SDF levels, one in four men will have discordant values in paired ejaculates. Clinicians should be judicious when using SDF test results in decision-making.

A Schematic Overview of the Current Status of Male Infertility Practice

The practice of male infertility has dramatically evolved over the past few decades. This has been achieved after the realization of the important contribution the male counterpart holds in the couple's infertility. It is also supported by a number of breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of this medical condition. Several tests to investigate sperm quality and function were introduced along with refinements and/or institution of novel surgical techniques that can correct several causes of infertility. This manuscript is aimed at highlighting the current state of male infertility practice in a robust, schematic method addressing a broader audience involved in the treatment of male infertility.

Oxidation-reduction potential and sperm DNA fragmentation, and their associations with sperm morphological anomalies amongst fertile and infertile men

Objective

To assess seminal oxidation–reduction potential (ORP) and sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) in male infertility and their relationships with sperm morphology in fertile and infertile men.

Patients and methods

Prospective case-control study comparing the findings of infertile men (n = 1168) to those of men with confirmed fertility (n = 100) regarding demographics and semen characteristics (conventional and advanced semen tests). Spearman rank correlation assessed the correlation between ORP, SDF, and different morphological indices. Means of ORP and SDF were assessed in variable levels of normal sperm morphology amongst all participants.

Results

Infertile patients had a significantly lower mean sperm count (32.7 vs 58.7 × 10⁶ sperm/mL), total motility (50.1% vs 60.4%), and normal morphology (5.7% vs 9.9%). Conversely, infertile patients had significantly higher mean head defects (54% vs 48%), and higher ORP and SDF values than fertile controls. ORP and SDF showed significant positive correlations and significant negative correlations with sperm head defects and normal morphology in infertile patients, respectively. ORP and SDF were significantly inversely associated with the level of normal sperm morphology. Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, ORP and SDF threshold values of 1.73 mV/10⁶ sperm/mL and 25.5%, respectively, were associated with 76% and 56% sensitivity and 72% and 72.2% specificity, respectively, in differentiating <4% from ≥4% normal morphology.

Conclusion

A direct inverse relationship exists between seminal ORP and SDF with various levels of normal sperm morphology. Using ORP and SDF measures in conjunction with standard semen morphology analysis could validate the result of the fertility status of patients.

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.