Antioxidants for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility. This review did not examine the use of antioxidants in normospermic men.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers were searched on 1 February 2018, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 studies with a total population of 6264 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Investigators compared and combined 18 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' quality: the main limitation was that out of the 44 included studies in the meta-analysis only 12 studies reported on live birth or clinical pregnancy. The evidence is current up to February 2018.Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.67, P = 0.005, 7 RCTs, 750 men, I² = 40%, low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate, the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 12%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 14% and 26%. However, this result was based on only 124 live births from 750 couples in seven relatively small studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.16; participants = 540 men, 5 RCTs, P = 0.15, I² = 0%).Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.91 to 4.63, P < 0.0001, 11 RCTs, 786 men, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. This suggests that if in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 7%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 12% and 26%. This result was based on 105 clinical pregnancies from 786 couples in 11 small studies.Adverse eventsMiscarriage: only three studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. There was no difference in miscarriage rate between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.60, P = 0.46, 3 RCTs, 247 men, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile men with an expected miscarriage rate of 2%, the chance following the use of an antioxidant would result in the risk of a miscarriage between 1% and 13%.Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal upsets when compared to placebo or no treatment (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.03, P = 0.010, 11 RCTs, 948 men, I² = 50%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal upsets following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 9%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 35 out of 948 men in 10 small or medium-sized studies, and the quality of the evidence was rated very low and was high in heterogeneity.We were unable to draw any conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, there is low-quality evidence from seven small randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-quality evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may also increase. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal upsets but the evidence is of very low quality. Subfertilte couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

Inositol for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Subfertile women are highly motivated to try different adjunctive therapies to have a baby, and the widespread perception is that dietary supplements such as myo-inositol (MI) and D-chiro-insoitol (DCI) are associated with only benefit, and not with harm. Many fertility clinicians currently prescribe MI for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) as pre-treatment to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or for ovulation induction; however no high-quality evidence is available to support this practice. This review assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of inositol in subfertile women with a diagnosis of PCOS.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation of inositol for reproductive outcomes among subfertile women with PCOS who are trying to conceive.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (to July 2018): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and AMED. We also checked reference lists and searched the clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose, or combination of oral inositol versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, or with a fertility agent, or with another type of inositol, among subfertile women with PCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live birth and adverse effects; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and ovulation rates. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model, and we calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by applying GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 1472 subfertile women with PCOS who were receiving myo-inositol as pre-treatment to IVF (11 trials), or during ovulation induction (two trials). These studies compared MI versus placebo, no treatment/standard, melatonin, metformin, clomiphene citrate, or DCI. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' quality. The main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, inconsistency, and lack of reporting of clinically relevant outcomes such as live birth and adverse events.We are uncertain whether MI improves live birth rates when compared to standard treatment among women undergoing IVF (OR 2.42, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.83; P = 0.14; 2 RCTs; 84 women; I² = 0%). Very low-quality evidence suggests that for subfertile women with PCOS undergoing pre-treatment to IVF who have an expected live birth rate of 12%, the rate among women using MI would be between 9% and 51%.We are uncertain whether MI may be associated with a decrease in miscarriage rate when compared to standard treatment (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.86; P = 0.02; 4 RCTs; 535 women; I² = 66%; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS with an expected miscarriage rate of 9% who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, the rate among women using MI would be between 2% and 8%; however this meta-analysis is based primarily on one study, which reported an unusually high miscarriage rate in the control group, and this has resulted in very high heterogeneity. When we removed this trial from the sensitivity analysis, we no longer saw the effect, and we noted no conclusive differences between MI and standard treatment.Low-quality evidence suggests that MI may be associated with little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rates when compared with standard treatment (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.71; P = 0.89; 2 RCTs; 425 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 18%, the rate among women using inositol would be between 12% and 27%.We are uncertain whether MI may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate when compared to standard treatment (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.85; P = 0.22; 4 RCTs; 535 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 26%, the rate among women using MI would be between 24% and 40%. Ovulation rates were not reported for this comparison.Other comparisons included only one trial in each, so for the comparisons MI versus antioxidant, MI versus an insulin-sensitising agent, MI versus an ovulation induction agent, and MI versus another DCI, meta-analysis was not possible.No pooled evidence was available for women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction, as only single trials performed comparison of the insulin-sensitising agent and the ovulation induction agent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In light of available evidence of very low quality, we are uncertain whether MI improves live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate in subfertile women with PCOS undergoing IVF pre-treatment taking MI compared to standard treatment. We are also uncertain whether MI decreases miscarriage rates or multiple pregnancy rates for these same women taking MI compared to standard treatment. No pooled evidence is available for use of MI versus placebo, another antioxidant, insulin-sensitising agents, ovulation induction agents, or another type of inositol for women with PCOS undergoing pre-treatment to IVF. No pooled evidence is available for use of MI in women undergoing ovulation induction.

Antioxidants for female subfertility

BACKGROUND

A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2016) with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of appropriate studies and searched for ongoing trials in the clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the dichotomous outcomes of live birth, clinical pregnancy and adverse events. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by applying GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 trials involving 6510 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including combinations of antioxidants, N-acetyl-cysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, D-chiro-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, pentoxifylline and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant.Very low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may be associated with an increased live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.12, P > 0.001, 8 RCTs, 651 women, I2 = 47%). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 20%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 26% and 43%.Very low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.76, P < 0.001, 26 RCTs, 4271 women, I2 = 66%). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 22%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 27% and 33%. Heterogeneity was moderately high.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.08, P = 0.14, 18 RCTs, 2834 women, I2 = 23%, very low quality evidence). This suggests that, among subfertile women with an expected miscarriage rate of 7%, use of antioxidants would be expected to result in a miscarriage rate of between 4% and 7%. There was also insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.38, P = 0.98, 8 RCTs, 2163 women, I2 = 4%, very low quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 8%, use of antioxidants would be expected to result in a multiple pregnancy rate between 6% and 11%. Likewise, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10, P = 0.47, 3 RCTs, 343 women, I2 = 0%, very low quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected gastrointestinal disturbance rate of 2%, use of antioxidants would be expected to result in a rate between 1% and 11%. Overall adverse events were reported by 35 trials in the meta-analysis, but there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions.Only one trial reported on live birth, clinical pregnancy or adverse effects in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, and no conclusions could be drawn.Very low-quality evidence suggests that pentoxifylline may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.56, P = 0.009, 3 RCTs, 276 women, I2 = 0%). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 25%, the rate among women using pentoxifylline would be between 28% and 53%.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.90, P = 0.58, 3 RCTs, 276 women, I2 = 0%) or multiple pregnancy (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.09, one RCT, 112 women, very low quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected miscarriage rate of 4%, the rate among women using pentoxifylline would be between 2% and 15%. For multiple pregnancy, the data suggest that among subfertile women with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 9%, the rate among women using pentoxifylline would be between 2% and 23%.The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, there was very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may provide benefit for subfertile women, but insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about adverse events. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.