Search

This review surveys the causes and consequences of DNA damage in the male germ line from spermatogonial stem cells to fully differentiated spermatozoa. Within the stem cell population, DNA integrity is well maintained as a result of excellent DNA surveillance and repair; however, a progressive increase in background mutation rates does occur with paternal age possibly as a result of aberrant DNA repair as well as replication error. Once a germ cell has committed to spermatogenesis, it responds to genetic damage via a range of DNA repair pathways or, if this process fails, by the induction of apoptosis. When fully‐differentiated spermatozoa are stressed, they also activate a truncated intrinsic apoptotic pathway which results in the activation of nucleases in the mitochondria and cytoplasm; however, the physical architecture of these cells prevents these enzymes from translocating to the nucleus to induce DNA fragmentation. Conversely, hydrogen peroxide released from the sperm midpiece during apoptosis is able to penetrate the nucleus and induce DNA damage. The base excision repair pathway responds to such damage by cleaving oxidized bases from the DNA, leaving abasic sites that are alkali‐labile and readily detected with the comet assay. As levels of oxidative stress increase and these cells enter the perimortem, topoisomerase integrated into the sperm chromatin becomes activated by SUMOylation. Such activation may initially facilitate DNA repair by reannealing double strand breaks but ultimately prepares the DNA for destruction by nucleases released from the male reproductive tract. The abasic sites and oxidized base lesions found in live spermatozoa are mutagenic and may increase the mutational load carried by the offspring, particularly in the context of assisted conception. A variety of strategies are described for managing patients expressing high levels of DNA damage in their spermatozoa, to reduce the risks such lesions might pose to offspring health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What are the updates for the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature from 2017 to 2022? SUMMARY ANSWER The guideline development group (GDG) updated 11 existing recommendations on investigations and treatments for RPL, and how care should be organized, and added one new recommendation on adenomyosis investigation in women with RPL. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A previous ESHRE guideline on RPL was published in 2017 and needs to be updated. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed and updated according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. The literature searches were updated, and assessments of relevant new evidence were performed. Relevant papers published between 31 March 2017 and 28 February 2022 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate, and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were updated and discussed until consensus was reached within the GDG. A stakeholder review was organized after the updated draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The new version of the guideline provides 39 recommendations on risk factors, prevention, and investigation in couples with RPL, and 38 recommendations on treatments. These includes 62 evidence-based recommendations—of which 33 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional—and 15 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, 12 (19.4%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (34 recommendations; 54.8%), or very low-quality evidence (16 recommendations; 25.8%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions those investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The guidelines have been updated; however, several investigations and treatments currently offered to couples with RPL have not been well studied; for most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against using the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best and most recent evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. Still, the absence of a unified definition of RPL is one of the most critical consequences of the limited scientific evidence in the field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. O.B.C. reports being a member of the executive board of the European Society for Reproductive Immunology and has received payment for honoraria for giving lectures about RPL in Australia in 2020. M.G. reports unconditional research and educational grant received by the Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring, not related to the presented work. S.L. reports position funding from EXAMENLAB Ltd. and ownership interest by stock or partnership of EXAMENLAB Ltd (CEO). S.Q. reports being a deputy director of Tommy's National centre for miscarriage research, with payment received by the institution for research, staff time, and consumables for research. H.S.N. reports grants with payment to institution from Freya Biosciences ApS, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, BioInnovation Institute, the Danish ministry of Education, Novo Nordic Foundation, Augustinus Fonden, Oda og Hans Svenningsens Fond, Demant Fonden, Ole Kirks Fond, and Independent Research Fund Denmark and speakers' fees for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Astra Zeneca, IBSA Nordic and Cook Medical. She also reports to be an unpaid founder and chairman of a maternity foundation. M.-L.v.d.H. received small honoraria for lectures on RPL care. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What effects did treatment using hyaluronic acid (HA) binding/selection prior to ICSI have on clinical outcomes in the Hyaluronic Acid Binding sperm Selection (HABSelect) clinical trial?Summary Answer: Older women randomized to the trial's experimental arm (selection of sperm bound to immobilized (solid-state) HA) had the same live birth rates as younger women, most likely a result of better avoidance of sperm with damaged DNA.What Is Known Already: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of HA-based sperm selection prior to ICSI, including HABSelect, have consistently reported reductions in the numbers of miscarriages among couples randomized to the intervention, suggesting a pathological sperm-mediated factor mitigated by prior HA-binding/selection. The mechanism of that protection is unknown.Study Design, Size, Duration: The original HABSelect Phase 3 RCT ran from 2014 to 2017 and included 2752 couples from whom sperm samples used in control (ICSI) and intervention (Physiological IntraCytoplasmic Sperm Injection; PICSI) arms of the trial were stored frozen for later assessment of DNA quality (DNAq). The trial overlapped with its mechanistic arm, running from 2016 to 2018.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: As miscarriage reduction was a significant secondary outcome of the trial, samples (n = 1247) selected for the mechanistic analysis were deliberately enriched for miscarriage outcomes (n = 92 or 7.4%) from a total of 154 miscarriages (5.6%) among all (n = 2752) couples randomized by stratified random sampling. Values from fresh semen samples for sperm concentration (mml), percentage forward progressive motility and percentage HA-binding score (HBS) were obtained before being processed by differential density gradient centrifugation or (rarely) by swim-up on the day of treatment. Surplus sperm pellets were recovered, aliquoted and cryopreserved for later analysis of DNAq using slide-based Comet, TUNEL, acridine orange (AO) and the sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) assays. Following their classification into normal and abnormal sample subcategories based on reference values for sperm concentration and motility, relationships with HBS and DNAq were examined by Spearman correlation, Student's t-tests, Mann Whitney U tests, and logistic regression (univariable and multivariable). Parsimonious selection enabled the development of models for exploring and explaining data trends. Potential differences in future cumulative pregnancy rates relating to embryo quality were also explored.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Results from the 1247 sperm samples assayed for HBS and/or DNAq, generated data that were considered in relation to standard physiological measures of (sperm) vitality and to treatment outcomes. All measures of HBS and DNAq discriminated normal from abnormal sperm samples (P < 0.001). SCD correlated negatively with the Comet (r = -0.165; P < 0.001) and TUNEL assays (r = -0.200; P < 0.001). HBS correlated negatively with AO (r = -0.211; P < 0.001), Comet (r = -0.127; P < 0.001) and TUNEL (r = -0.214; P < 0.001) and positively with SCD (r = 0.255; P < 0.001). A model for predicting live birth (and miscarriage) rates included treatment allocation (odds ratio: OR 2.167, 95% CI 1.084-4.464, P = 0.031), female age (OR 0.301, 95% CI 0.133-0.761, P = 0.013, per decade) and the AO assay (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1. 02.761, P = 0.073, per 10 points rise). A model predicting the expected rate of biochemical pregnancy included male age (OR 0.464, 95% CI 0.314-0.674, P < 0.001, per decade) and the SCD assay (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.007-1.075, P = 0.018, per 10 point rise). A model for conversion from biochemical to clinical pregnancy did not retain any significant patient or assay variables. A model for post-injection fertilization rates included treatment allocation (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.91, P < 0.001) and the Comet assay (OR 0.950, 95% CI 0.91-1.00, P = 0.041).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: HABSelect was a prospective RCT and the mechanistic study group was drawn from its recruitment cohort for retrospective analysis, without the full benefit of randomization. The clinical and mechanistic aspects of the study were mutually exclusive in that measures of DNAq were obtained from residual samples and not from HA-selected versus unselected sperm. Models for fitting mechanistic with baseline and other clinical data were developed to compensate for variable DNAq data quality. HABSelect used a solid-state version of PICSI and we did not assess the efficacy of any liquid-state alternatives. PICSI reduced fertilization rates and did not improve the outlook for cumulative pregnancy rates.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Notwithstanding the interventional effect on fertilization rates and possibly blastocyst formation (neither of which influenced pregnancy rates), poor sperm DNAq, reflected by lower HBS, probably contributed to the depression of all gestational outcomes including live births, in the HABSelect trial. The interventional avoidance of defective sperm is the best explanation for the equalization in live birth rates among older couples randomized to the trial's PICSI arm. As patients going forward for assisted conception cycles globally in future are likely to be dominated by an older demographic, HA-based selection of sperm for ICSI could be considered as part of their treatment plan.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) EME (Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation)-11-14-34. National Research Ethics Service approval 11/06/2013: 13/YH/0162. S.L. is CEO of ExamenLab Ltd (company number NI605309).Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN99214271. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Author(s): R. John Aitken [1, 3]; Peter Koopman [2, 3]; Sheena E. M. Lewis [4] What do male alligators in Florida and male industrial workers in California have in common? [...]