Sperm donor recruitment within an NHS fertility service since the removal of anonymity

Is pre-freeze sperm preparation more advantageous than post-freeze?

Human sperm cryopreservation is characterised to this day by sub-optimal success rates. Interestingly, a traditional approach to improving post-thaw outcome has been to integrate standard sperm preparation techniques into freezing protocols as a means of selecting sperm with the highest fertilisation potential prior to insemination. However, no consensus has been reached yet regarding the optimal timing (before or after freezing) of this selection step. Following analysis of a total of 20 human semen samples, which were divided into two aliquots prepared by density gradient centrifugation either before or after freezing, this study demonstrated higher post-thaw total (P < 0.0001), progressively motile (P = 0.005) and vital (P < 0.0001) sperm counts for frozen-prepared semen samples. The present study suggests that direct insemination with frozen-prepared sperm with minimal intervening post-thaw processing might be a more advantageous approach to current clinical practices, particularly for donor and patient intrauterine insemination programmes. Further research into cryopreservation-induced coiled sperm tail morphology is also warranted.

Lay summary

Freezing and storing of sperm in liquid nitrogen ('sperm cryopreservation') is the current method of choice for preserving the fertility of a wide scope of men. Nevertheless, sub-optimal sperm survival is still associated with traditional cryopreservation methods, namely 'slow freezing', and may affect fertility treatment success rates. Interestingly, a widely applied approach for selecting high-quality sperm before treatment has been to incorporate 'sperm preparation' techniques, such as density gradient centrifugation, in slow freezing protocols. There is, however, an ongoing debate regarding which is the optimal timing of this selection step: before or after freezing. In this study, we collected 20 human semen samples which were divided into two portions and subjected to density gradient centrifugation either before or after freezing. Post-thaw semen analyses demonstrated significantly improved sperm counts (P < 0.05) when density gradient centrifugation was performed before freezing, thus suggesting this approach to be more advantageous for current clinical practices.

Maintaining an adequate sperm donor pool: modifying the medical criteria for sperm donor selection

The shortage of donor sperm will increase due to greater access by lesbian couples and single women and due to extra rules imposed on sperm donation. Two steps should be distinguished in donor recruitment: an ethical phase where candidates are self-selecting on the basis of ethical rules, and a medical phase where criteria related to quality and safety of the sperm are imposed. The first phase functions as a bottle neck. Candidate donors who reject the ethical rules will not present themselves for donation in clinics and sperm banks. If the ethical rules remain unchanged, the medical rules that apply after the bottle neck should become less stringent if a sufficient number of donors are to be maintained. Lowering the sperm quality standards will lead to more IVF. Although this is regrettable, it will become unavoidable if the scarcity of donors increases.

Rethinking gamete donor care: A satisfaction survey of egg and sperm donors in the UK

OBJECTIVE

Despite poor clinic communication and staff treatment being reported by donors, high rates of overall satisfaction are still reported in surveys. This study will evaluate the importance of communication and interaction between donors and fertility clinic staff in gamete donor care.

METHODS

We report on 120 egg and sperm donors' responses to a UK-wide online satisfaction survey. The survey focused on donors' interactions with fertility clinic staff pre-, during, and post- donation. Basic cross-tabulation was performed on the data using online survey software. Textual data was read and extracts identified, which illustrated and expanded on the findings from the numerical data. Diagrammatic modeling was also utilised to analyse the textual data, with particular focus to relationships between the donors and clinic staff, the main activities within the gamete donation process, and how these activities may affect donor satisfaction with the gamete donation process.

RESULTS

Donors expressed concern for the infertile couple and the resulting child; conveyed frustration at not receiving information on the expenses they could claim; felt lost in the system regarding the ease of making clinic appointments, and once made they were routinely not seen on time for these appointments. Donors also negatively commented on aftercare, the location and condition of the donation room, and information on contraception. In addition, Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome was frequently reported, with these egg donors believing that clinic staff were not concerned with their physical or emotional well-being, but were instead disproportionately focused on extracting the eggs.

CONCLUSIONS

The multifaceted notion of donors highlights the complexity inherent to the gamete donation process, which comprises various aspects of uncertainty in the donation system, and ambiguity in the donation process. Categorising donors as Altruist, Customer, and Patient, conveys the particular importance of staff communication and treatment in donor care. These categories are not mutually exclusive however, in that an individual donor may experience more than one of these perspectives during the course of their gamete donation journey. Finally, there were a number of exemplar cases, where donors reported high satisfaction throughout, and these correlated with them being given a single point of contact at the clinic. Subject to resource constraints, we suggest that this practice should be implemented throughout clinics in the UK, so that donors have access to dedicated clinic staff who not only support them emotionally and physically throughout the gamete donation process, but also ensure that communication is open, clear, timely, and consistent.

Process and Pitfalls of Sperm Cryopreservation

Sperm cryopreservation has been utilized routinely for over 40 years to preserve fertility in men undergoing cancer therapy and allow conception for infertile couples. This article provides a concise and up-to-date review of the literature and covers the latest advances in sperm cryopreservation and its array of clinical indications. Over recent years, the scope of clinical indications used for sperm cryopreservation has expanded widely. Consequently, more patient groups are eligible for sperm freezing, requiring specialist resources and higher running costs. Although sperm cryopreservation prior to cancer therapy is readily available in many countries, referral rates by oncology specialists and levels of patient engagement with cryopreservation services are both reported as low. Furthermore, sperm banking continues to raise ethical issues such whether sperm donation should be anonymous and whether sperm can be utilized posthumously by the surviving partner without consent from the patient. This review focuses on the technological advances and ethical controversies in sperm cryopreservation, and how better understanding of these issues could lead to improved access to fertility preserving treatment for patients.

Sperm DNA fragmentation in cryopreserved samples from subjects with different cancers

Sperm cryopreservation is widely used by cancer patients undergoing chemo- or radiotherapy. Evidence suggests that IVF outcome with cryopreserved spermatozoa from cancer patients is less successful. To determine whether sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is involved in the lower fertilising ability of cryopreserved spermatozoa of cancer patients, SDF was evaluated in thawed spermatozoa from 78 men affected by different cancers and 53 men with non-cancer pathologies. SDF was assessed by the terminal deoxyribonucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP–digoxigenin nick end-labelling (TUNEL), propidium iodide (PI), flow cytometry procedure, which allows determination of two different cell populations (PIbrighter and PIdimmer) and thus to determine the percentage of DNA fragmented sperm in both. PIdimmer spermatozoa are totally unviable, whereas PIbrighter spermatozoa with SDF may be motile and morphologically normal, having higher biological relevance in the reproductive process. We found that the proportion of DNA fragmented PIbrighter cells was significantly higher in thawed spermatozoa from cancer than non-cancer patients. Moreover, a positive correlation was found between the degree of DNA fragmentation and sperm motility in the PIbrighter population of spermatozoa from cancer patients that wasn’t seen in non-cancer patients. The results of the present study suggest that higher SDF levels may contribute to the lower IVF success of cryopreserved spermatozoa from cancer patients and that evaluation of SDF could complement genetic counselling as part of the routine management of cancer patients who seek fertility preservation.

A meta-analysis of sperm donation offspring health outcomes

Although the use of donor sperm as a treatment modality for male infertility has become common place, the health outcomes for those conceived has been poorly studied. A structured search of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Reviews was performed to investigate the health outcomes of offspring conceived from donor sperm. Eight studies were eligible and included in the review, and of these, three were included in a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes showed that donor sperm neonates are not at increased risk of being born of low birth weight (<2500 g), preterm (<37 weeks) or with increased incidences of birth defects, than spontaneously conceived neonates.

Standards in reporting cryopreserved donor sperm characteristics: should they be reported post-thaw or post-wash?

An increase in the reliance on imported donor samples has been the consequence of a continued shortage of UK donors. Disputes can arise between suppliers and purchasers if the sperm quality is not as expected, yet there appears to be no requirement for the standardization of methods for sperm processing or analysis. Following analysis of 102 donor intrauterine insemination cycles, this study demonstrates that the motile sperm concentration is significantly (P < 0.05) reduced after the necessary removal of cryoprotectant before insemination. Suppliers of donor spermatozoa should therefore provide information on standards used for sperm assessment and whether analysis is performed before or after washing in order that purchasers are better informed about the quality of the end product they are committed to buying.

Evolving minimum standards in responsible international sperm donor offspring quota

An international working group was established with the aim of making recommendations on the number of offspring for a sperm donor that should be allowable in cases of international use of his sperm. Considerations from genetic, psychosocial, operational and ethical points of view were debated. For these considerations, it was assumed that current developments in genetic testing and Internet possibilities mean that, now, all donors are potentially identifiable by their offspring, so no distinction was made between anonymous and non-anonymous donation. Genetic considerations did not lead to restrictive limits (indicating that up to 200 offspring or more per donor may be acceptable except in isolated social-minority situations). Psychosocial considerations on the other hand led to proposals of rather restrictive limits (10 families per donor or less). Operational and ethical considerations did not lead to more or less concrete limits per donor, but seemed to lie in-between those resulting from the aforementioned ways of viewing the issue. In the end, no unifying agreed figure could be reached; however the consensus was that the number should never exceed 100 families. The conclusions of the group are summarized in three recommendations.

Gamete donation in France: the future of the anonymity doctrine

In France, since the approval of the first bioethics laws in 1994, the principle of the anonymity of sperm donors has prevailed. This choice is regularly challenged, namely by children who have been conceived under these conditions and have now reached adulthood. In this paper, we will briefly describe the reasons that led practitioners of assisted reproduction to endorse the anonymity principle in 1994. Secondly, we will elaborate on the reasons why this principle is becoming so controversial today. Finally, we shall examine two possible outcomes of the debate, highlighting their respective legitimacy as well as their consequences, as far as the rights of children, the notion of the family, and medical practice are concerned.

Sperm donor recruitment, attitudes and provider practices--5 years after the removal of donor anonymity

STUDY QUESTION

Has the change in donor anonymity legislation in UK affected the recruitment of men wanting to be sperm donors and also affected the attitudes of the practitioners who provide donor sperm treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

We have performed fewer IUI and IVF treatments using donor sperm following the change in legislation in April 2005 than before. However, we have seen an overall increase in men wanting to donate their sperm, including a small increase in men from ethnic minorities.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Sweden, which removed donor anonymity in 1985, had an initial drop in men wanting to donate and then 10 years later started to have an increase. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and other studies in the UK have shown an overall downward trend, but have not been able to compare large time scales either side of the change in legislation.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a retrospective descriptive study that looked at all men who approached the clinic between the years 2000 and 2010, i.e. 5 years either side of the change in legislation (April 2005). Overall, we had 24 men wanting to be donors prior to the rule change and 65 men after the rule change. We also investigated the total number of all treatments with donor sperm, and this included a total of 1004 donor sperm treatments prior to the change in legislation and 403 donor sperm treatments after the change in legislation.

PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS

The study was set in an NHS IVF clinic in South East London. We compared the indicators of service provision, provider practices and donor attitudes, in the period between April 2000 and March 2005 (Group A) with those between April 2005 and March 2010 (Group B), i.e. 5 years either side of the change in legislation.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 875 IUI treatments and 129 IVF or ICSI treatments in Group A and 325 IUI and 78 IVF/ICSI treatments in Group B with the use of donor sperm, of which, 11.9% (119 out of 1004) in Group A and 39.5% (159 out of 403) in Group B were with donor sperm recruited by our unit. The clinical pregnancy rate per cycle of treatment in Group A was (86 out of 875) 9.8% for IUI and (27 out of 129) 20.9% for IVF/ICSI and in Group B (32/325) 9.8% and (28 out of 78) 35.9%, respectively. There was a sharp yearly fall in donor sperm treatments from 2004. Twenty-four men were screened in Group A, of which 18 (75.0%) were recruited for long-term storage and 12 (50%) were registered as donors with the HFEA when the sperm was used, whereas in Group B, 65 men were screened, 53 (82.0%) were recruited and 24 (36.92%) were registered as donors. Six (24.0%) men in Group A failed in screening because of poor semen analysis when compared with 9 (13.8%) men in Group B. The majority of post-recruitment dropouts were because of loss of follow-up or withdrawal of consent. More donors in Group A were white (92.0 versus 77.0%) and born in UK (92.0 versus 68.0%) when compared with those in Group B. Donors in Group B were more likely to be single (46.0 versus 4.0%) and to have informed their relevant partner of donation (71.0 versus 54.0%) when compared with those in Group A. 83.0% of donors in Group A were heterosexual when compared with 69.0% in Group B. The primary reason for donating in both groups of potential donors was 'wanting to help' (46.0% 'altruistic donors' in Group A versus 72.0% in Group B). Fewer donors in Group B (37%) had specific restrictions about the use of their sperm when compared with 46.0% in Group A.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

As this was a retrospective study, there is a chance for the introduction of bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

We have shown that despite no active in-house recruitment procedures, we are managing to recruit more potential sperm donors after the change in UK legislation, and we are able to meet the demand for treatments with in-house recruited donor sperm that is a reassuring finding for donor sperm treatment services in the wider UK.

FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

No external funds were sought for this work. None of the authors have any competing interests to declare.

The evolution of health policy guidelines for assisted reproduction in the Republic of Ireland, 2004-2009

This analysis reports on Irish regulatory policies for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) from 2004-2009, in the context of membership changes within the Medical Council of Ireland. To achieve this, the current (2009) edition of the Guide to Professional Conduct & Ethics was compared with the immediately preceding version (2004). The statutory composition of the Medical Council from 2004-2009 was also studied. Content analysis of the two editions identified the following differences: 1) The 2004 guide states that IVF "should only be used after thorough investigation has failed to reveal a treatable cause of the infertility", while the 2009 guide indicates IVF "should only be used after thorough investigation has shown that no other treatment is likely to be effective"; 2) The 2004 stipulation stating that fertilized ovum (embryo) "must be used for normal implantation and must not be deliberately destroyed" is absent from the 2009 guidelines; 3) The option to donate "unused fertilised ova" (embryos) is omitted from the 2009 guidelines; 4) The 2009 guidelines state that ART should be offered only by "suitably qualified professionals, in appropriate facilities, and according to the international best practice"; 5) The 2009 guidelines introduce criteria that donations as part of a donor programme should be "altruistic and non-commercial". These last two points represent original regulatory efforts not appearing in the 2004 edition. The Medical Practitioners Act 2007 reduced the number of physicians on the Medical Council to 6 (of 25) members. The ethical guidelines from 2004 preceded this change, while the reconstituted Medical Council published the 2009 version. Between 2004 and 2009, substantial modifications in reproductive health policy were incorporated into the Medical Council's ethical guidelines. The absence of controlling Irish legislation means that patients and IVF providers in Ireland must rely upon these guidelines by default. Our critique traces the evolution of public policy on IVF during a time when the membership of the Medical Council changed radically; reduced physician contribution to decision-making was associated with diminished protection for IVF-derived embryos in Ireland. Considerable uncertainty on IVF practice in Ireland remains.