Psychosocial counselling of identifiable sperm donors

STUDY QUESTION: What do identifiable sperm donors feel about psychosocial counselling? SUMMARY ANSWER: Identifiable sperm donors found it important that psychosocial counselling focused on emotional consequences and on rules and regulations and they expected to have access to psychosocial counselling at the time that donor-offspring actually sought contact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Most studies on sperm donors are on anonymous donors and focus on recruitment, financial compensation, anonymity and motivations. There is limited knowledge on the value that identifiable sperm donors place on psychosocial counselling and what their needs are in this respect. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: We performed a qualitative study from March until June 2014 with 25 identifiable sperm donors, who were or had been a donor at the Centre for Reproductive Medicine of the Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam any time between 1989 and 2014. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: We held semi-structured in-depth interviews with identifiable sperm donors with an average age of 44 years. The interviews were fully transcribed and analysed using the constant comparative method of grounded theory. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANGE: Twelve out of 15 donors (former donors ITALIC! n = 8, active donors ITALIC! n = 7) who had received a counselling session during their intake procedure found it important that they had been able to talk about issues such as the emotional consequences of donation, disclosure to their own children, family and friends, future contact with donor-offspring and rules and regulations. Of the 10 former donors who had received no counselling session, 8 had regretted the lack of intensive counselling. In the years following their donation, most donors simply wanted to know how many offspring had been born using their sperm and had no need for further counselling. Nevertheless, they frequently mentioned that they were concerned about the well-being of 'their' offspring. In addition, they would value the availability of psychosocial counselling in the event that donor-offspring actually sought contact. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation of our study is its generalizability, since only a small number of identifiable donors at a single centre were studied. Variation in how donors are counselled upon intake may affect how donors value psychosocial counselling. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study reports on the issues that identifiable donors value being addressed during their intake procedure, as well as during counselling in the event that donor-offspring actually seek contact. These findings can be used to achieve a higher quality of care for identifiable sperm donors and may be the starting point for developing guidelines on psychosocial counselling for sperm donors. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was obtained for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare

Prediction model for live birth in ICSI using testicular extracted sperm

STUDY QUESTION: Which parameters have a predictive value for live birth in couples undergoing ICSI after successful testicular sperm extraction (TESE-ICSI)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Female age, a first or subsequent started TESE-ICSI cycle, male LH, male testosterone, motility of the spermatozoa during the ICSI procedure and the initial male diagnosis before performing TESE were identified as relevant and independent parameters for live birth after TESE-ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In reproductive medicine prediction models are used frequently to predict treatment success, but no prediction model currently exists for live birth after TESE-ICSI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study between 2007 and 2015 in two academic hospitals including 1559 TESE-ICSI cycles. The prediction model was developed using data from one centre and validation was performed with data from the second centre. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included couples undergoing ICSI treatment with surgically retrieved sperm from the testis for the first time. In the development set we included 526 couples undergoing 1006 TESE-ICSI cycles. In the validation set we included 289 couples undergoing 553 TESE-ICSI cycles. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed in a stepwise fashion (P < 0.2 for entry). The external validation was based on discrimination and calibration. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 224 couples (22.3%) with a live birth in the development set. The occurrence of a live birth was associated with lower female age, first TESE-ICSI cycle, lower male LH, higher male testosterone, the use of motile spermatozoa for ICSI and having obstructive azoospermia as an initial suspected diagnosis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.62. From validation data, the model had moderate discriminative capacity (c-statistic 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.72) but calibrated well, with a range from 0.06 to 0.56 in calculated probabilities. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We had a lack of data about the motility of spermatozoa during TESE, therefore, we used motility of the spermatozoa used for ICSI after freeze-thawing, information which is only available during treatment. We had to exclude data on paternal BMI in the model because too many missing values in the validation data hindered testing. We did not include a histologic diagnosis, which would have made our data set less heterogeneous and, finally, our model may not be applicable in centres which have a different policy for the indication for performing sperm extraction. The prognostic value of the model is limited because of a low 'area under the curve'. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This model enables the differentiation between couples with a low or high chance to reach a live birth using TESE-ICSI. As such it can aid in the counselling of patients and in clinical decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was partly supported by an unconditional grant from Merck Serono (to D.D.M.B. and K.F.) and by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Merck Serono had no influence in concept, design, nor elaboration of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable

Intracervical insemination versus intrauterine insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION: Is intracervical insemination (ICI) non-inferior to IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: ICI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in terms of live birth. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Both ICI and IUI in the natural cycle are performed as first-line treatments in women who are eligible for donor sperm treatment. High-quality data on the effectiveness of ICI versus IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an open-label multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial in the Netherlands and Belgium. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We randomly allocated women who were eligible for donor sperm treatment with cryopreserved donor semen to six cycles of ICI in the natural cycle or six cycles of IUI in the natural cycle. The primary outcome was conception within 8 months after randomization leading to a live birth. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and time to conception leading to live birth. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CI. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the 95% RD CI was <-12%. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between June 2014 and February 2019, we included 421 women, of whom 211 women were randomly allocated to ICI and 210 to IUI. Of the 211 women allocated to ICI, 2 women were excluded, 126 women completed treatment according to protocol and 75 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Of the 210 women allocated to IUI, 3 women were excluded, 140 women completed treatment according to protocol and 62 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Mean female age was 34 years (SD ±4) in both interventions. Conception leading to live birth occurred in 51 women (24%) allocated to ICI and in 81 women (39%) allocated to IUI (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.84). This corresponds to an absolute RD of -15%; 95% CI: -24% to -6.9%, suggesting inferiority of ICI. ICI also resulted in a lower live birth rate over time (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.82). Our per-protocol analysis showed that, within the 8 months treatment horizon, 48 women (38%) had live births after ICI and 79 women (56%) had live births after IUI (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52-0.88; RD -18%, 95% CI: -30% to -6%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was non-blinded owing to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since ICI in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in the natural cycle with cryopreserved donor sperm in terms of live birth rate, IUI is the preferred treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw project number 837002407). B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437), reports consultancy for ObsEva and has received research funding from Guerbet, Ferring and Merck. The other authors do not declare a COI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4462. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 11 March 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: 03 June 2014

Intracervical insemination versus intrauterine insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle: a randomized controlled trial

Vol. 37(6) pp 1175-1182STUDY QUESTION: Is intracervical insemination (ICI) non-inferior to IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: ICI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in terms of live birth. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Both ICI and IUI in the natural cycle are performed as first-line treatments in women who are eligible for donor sperm treatment. High-quality data on the effectiveness of ICI versus IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an open-label multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial in the Netherlands and Belgium. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We randomly allocated women who were eligible for donor sperm treatment with cryopreserved donor semen to six cycles of ICI in the natural cycle or six cycles of IUI in the natural cycle. The primary outcome was conception within 8 months after randomization leading to a live birth. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and time to conception leading to live birth. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CI. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the 95% RD CI was < 12%. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between June 2014 and February 2019, we included 421 women, of whom 211 women were randomly allocated to ICI and 210 to IUI. Of the 211 women allocated to ICI, 2 women were excluded, 126 women completed treatment according to protocol and 75 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Of the 210 women allocated to IUI, 3 women were excluded, 140 women completed treatment according to protocol and 62 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Mean female age was 34 years (SD §4) in both interventions. Conception leading to live birth occurred in 51 women (24%) allocated to ICI and in 81 women (39%) allocated to IUI (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.84). This corresponds to an absolute RD of -15%; 95% CI: -24% to -6.9%, suggesting inferiority of ICI. ICI also resulted in a lower live birth rate over time (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41–0.82). Our per-protocol analysis showed that, within the 8 months treatment horizon, 48 women (38%) had live births after ICI and 79 women (56%) had live births after IUI (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52–0.88; RD -18%, 95% CI: -30% to -6%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was non-blinded owing to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since ICI in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in the natural cycle with cryopreserved donor sperm in terms of live birth rate, IUI is the preferred treatment.P.A.L. Kop, M. van Wely, A. Nap, A.T. Soufan, A.A. de Melker, B.W.J. Mol, R.E. Bernardus, M. De Brucker, P.M.W. Janssens, J.J.P.M. Pieters, S. Repping, F. van der Veen, and M.H. Mochta

Prediction model for obtaining spermatozoa with testicular sperm extraction in men with non-obstructive azoospermia

STUDY QUESTION: Can an externally validated model, based on biological variables, be developed to predict successful sperm retrieval with testicular sperm extraction (TESE) in men with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) using a large nationwide cohort? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our prediction model including six variables was able to make a good distinction between men with a good chance and men with a poor chance of obtaining spermatozoa with TESE. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Using ICSI in combination with TESE even men suffering from NOA are able to father their own biological child. Only in approximately half of the patients with NOA can testicular sperm be retrieved successfully. The few models that have been developed to predict the chance of obtaining spermatozoa with TESE were based on small datasets and none of them have been validated externally. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a retrospective nationwide cohort study. Data from 1371 TESE procedures were collected between June 2007 and June 2015 in the two fertility centres. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All men with NOA undergoing their first TESE procedure as part of a fertility treatment were included. The primary end-point was the presence of one or more spermatozoa (regardless of their motility) in the testicular biopsies.We constructed a model for the prediction of successful sperm retrieval, using univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analysis and the dataset from one centre. This model was then validated using the dataset from the other centre. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated and model calibration was assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 599 (43.7%) successful sperm retrievals after a first TESE procedure. The prediction model, built after multivariable logistic regression analysis, demonstrated that higher male age, higher levels of serum testosterone and lower levels of FSH and LH were predictive for successful sperm retrieval. Diagnosis of idiopathic NOA and the presence of an azoospermia factor c gene deletion were predictive for unsuccessful sperm retrieval. The AUC was 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.72). The difference between the mean observed chance and the mean predicted chance was <2.0% in all groups, indicating good calibration. In validation, the model had moderate discriminative capacity (AUC 0.65, 95% CI: 0.62-0.72) and moderate calibration: the predicted probability never differed by more than 9.2% of the mean observed probability. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The percentage of men with Klinefelter syndrome among men diagnosed with NOA is expected to be higher than in our study population, which is a potential selection bias. The ability of the sperm retrieved to fertilize an oocyte and produce a live birth was not tested. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This model can help in clinical decision-making in men with NOA by reliably predicting the chance of obtaining spermatozoa with TESE. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: This study was partly supported by an unconditional grant from Merck Serono (to D.D.M.B. and K.F.) and by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Merck Serono had no influence in concept, design nor elaboration of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable