Could the sperm epigenome become a diagnostic tool for evaluation of the infertile man?

Although male infertility is currently diagnosed when abnormal sperm parameters are found, the poor predictive ability of sperm parameters on natural fecundity and medically assisted reproduction outcome poses the need for improved diagnostic techniques for male infertility. The accumulating evidence about the role played by the sperm epigenome in modulation of the early phases of embryonic development has led researchers to focus on the epigenetic mechanisms within the sperm epigenome to find new molecular markers of male infertility. Indeed, sperm epigenome abnormalities could explain some cases of unexplained male infertility in men showing normal sperm parameters and were found to be associated with poor embryo development in IVF cycles. The present mini-review summarizes the current knowledge about this interesting topic, starting from a description of the epigenetic mechanisms of gene expression regulation (i.e. DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNAs' activity). We also discuss possible mechanisms by which environmental factors might cause epigenetic changes in the human germline and affect embryonic development, as well as subsequent generations' phenotypes. Studies demonstrating sperm epigenome abnormalities in men with male infertility are reviewed, with particular emphasis on those with the more severe form of spermatogenic dysfunction. Observations demonstrate that the diagnostic and prognostic efficacy of sperm epigenome evaluation will help facilitate the management of men with male factor infertility

Protocol for developing a core outcome set for male infertility research:an international consensus development study

Abstract STUDY QUESTION We aim to develop, disseminate and implement a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future male infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Research into male infertility can be challenging to design, conduct and report. Evidence from randomized trials can be difficult to interpret and of limited ability to inform clinical practice for numerous reasons. These may include complex issues, such as variation in outcome measures and outcome reporting bias, as well as failure to consider the perspectives of men and their partners with lived experience of fertility problems. Previously, the Core Outcome Measure for Infertility Trials (COMMIT) initiative, an international consortium of researchers, healthcare professionals and people with fertility problems, has developed a core outcome set for general infertility research. Now, a bespoke core outcome set for male infertility is required to address the unique challenges pertinent to male infertility research. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, scientists, researchers and people with fertility problems, will be invited to participate. Formal consensus science methods will be used, including the modified Delphi method, modified Nominal Group Technique and the National Institutes of Health’s consensus development conference. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS An international steering group, including the relevant stakeholders outlined above, has been established to guide the development of this core outcome set. Possible core outcomes will be identified by undertaking a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male factor infertility. These outcomes will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Repeated reflection and re-scoring should promote convergence towards consensus outcomes, which will be prioritized during a consensus development meeting to identify a final core outcome set. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work has been supported by the Urology Foundation small project award, 2021. C.L.R.B. is the recipient of a BMGF grant and received consultancy fees from Exscentia and Exceed sperm testing, paid to the University of Dundee and speaking fees or honoraria paid personally by Ferring, Copper Surgical and RBMO. S.B. received royalties from Cambridge University Press, Speaker honoraria for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Singapore, Merk SMART Masterclass and Merk FERRING Forum, paid to the University of Aberdeen. Payment for leadership roles within NHS Grampian, previously paid to self, now paid to University of Aberdeen. An Honorarium is received as Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. M.L.E. is an advisor to the companies Hannah and Ro. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from the NHMRC, No: GNT1176437 is a paid consultant for ObsEva and has received research funding from Ferring and Merck. R.R.H. received royalties from Elsevier for a book, consultancy fees from Glyciome, and presentation fees from GryNumber Health and Aytu Bioscience. Aytu Bioscience also funded MiOXYS systems and sensors. Attendance at Fertility 2020 and Roadshow South Africa by Ralf Henkel was funded by LogixX Pharma Ltd. R.R.H. is also Editor in Chief of Andrologia and has been an employee of LogixX Pharma Ltd. since 2020. M.S.K. is an associate editor with Human Reproduction Open. K.Mc.E. received an honoraria for lectures from Bayer and Pharmasure in 2019 and payment for an ESHRE grant review in 2019. His attendance at ESHRE 2019 and AUA 2019 was sponsored by Pharmasure and Bayer, respectively. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative registration No: 1586. Available at www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1586. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE N/A. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT N/A

Post-vasectomy semen analysis: Optimizing laboratory procedures and test interpretation through a clinical audit and global survey of practices

Purpose: The success of vasectomy is determined by the outcome of a post-vasectomy semen analysis (PVSA). This article describes a step-by-step procedure to perform PVSA accurately, report data from patients who underwent post vasectomy semen analysis between 2015 and 2021 experience, along with results from an international online survey on clinical practice. Materials and Methods: We present a detailed step-by-step protocol for performing and interpretating PVSA testing, along with recommendations for proficiency testing, competency assessment for performing PVSA, and clinical and laboratory scenarios. Moreover, we conducted an analysis of 1,114 PVSA performed at the Cleveland Clinic’s Andrology Laboratory and an online survey to understand clinician responses to the PVSA results in various countries. Results: Results from our clinical experience showed that 92.1% of patients passed PVSA, with 7.9% being further tested. A total of 78 experts from 19 countries participated in the survey, and the majority reported to use time from vasectomy rather than the number of ejaculations as criterion to request PVSA. A high percentage of responders reported permitting unprotected intercourse only if PVSA samples show azoospermia while, in the presence of few non-motile sperm, the majority of responders suggested using alternative contraception, followed by another PVSA. In the presence of motile sperm, the majority of participants asked for further PVSA testing. Repeat vasectomy was mainly recommended if motile sperm were observed after multiple PVSA’s. A large percentage reported to recommend a second PVSA due to the possibility of legal actions. Conclusions: Our results highlighted varying clinical practices around the globe, with controversy over the significance of non-motile sperm in the PVSA sample. Our data suggest that less stringent AUA guidelines would help improve test compliance. A large longitudinal multi-center study would clarify various doubts related to timing and interpretation of PVSA and would also help us to understand, and perhaps predict, recanalization and the potential for future failure of a vasectomy.American Center for Reproductive Medicin

Prediction Models for Successful Sperm Retrieval in Patients with Non-Obstructive Azoospermia Undergoing Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction: Is There Any Room for Further Studies?

Several prediction models for successful sperm retrieval (SSR) in patients with azoospermia due to spermatogenic dysfunction (also termed non-obstructive azoospermia—NOA) have been developed and published in the past years, however their resulting prediction accuracy has never been strong enough to translate their results in the clinical practice. This notwithstanding, the number of prediction models being proposed in this field is growing. We have reviewed the available evidence and found that, although patients with complete AZFc deletion or a history of cryptorchidism may have better probability of SSR compared to those with idiopathic NOA, no clinical or laboratory marker is able to determine whether a patient with NOA should or should not undergo microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) to have his testicular sperm retrieved. Further research is warranted to confirm the utility of evaluating the expression of noncoding RNAs in the seminal plasma, to individuate patients with NOA with higher probability of SSR

Hormonal Treatment of Men with Nonobstructive Azoospermia: What Does the Evidence Suggest?

Hormonal stimulation of spermatogenesis prior to surgery has been tested by some authors to maximize the sperm retrieval yield in patients with nonobstructive azoospermia. Although the rationale of such an approach is theoretically sound, studies have provided conflicting results, and there are unmet questions that need to be addressed. In the present narrative review, we reviewed the current knowledge about the hormonal control of spermatogenesis, the relationship between presurgical serum hormones levels and sperm retrieval rates, and the results of studies investigating the effect of hormonal treatments prior to microdissection testicular sperm extraction. We pooled the available data about sperm retrieval rate in patients with low vs. normal testosterone levels, and found that patients with normal testosterone levels had a significantly higher chance of successful sperm retrieval compared to those with subnormal T levels (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08–2.45, p = 0.02). These data suggest that hormonal treatment may be justified in patients with hypogonadism; on the other hand, the available evidence is insufficient to recommend hormonal therapy as standard clinical practice to improve the sperm retrieval rate in patients with nonobstructive azoospermia

Update on the Management of Non-Obstructive Azoospermia: Current Evidence and Unmet Needs

Azoospermia, defined as the absence of sperm in the ejaculate after examination of the centrifuged specimens, affects about 1% of the male population and 10–15% of infertile men [...

Prediction Models for Successful Sperm Retrieval in Patients with Non-Obstructive Azoospermia Undergoing Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction: Is There Any Room for Further Studies?

Several prediction models for successful sperm retrieval (SSR) in patients with azoospermia due to spermatogenic dysfunction (also termed non-obstructive azoospermia—NOA) have been developed and published in the past years, however their resulting prediction accuracy has never been strong enough to translate their results in the clinical practice. This notwithstanding, the number of prediction models being proposed in this field is growing. We have reviewed the available evidence and found that, although patients with complete AZFc deletion or a history of cryptorchidism may have better probability of SSR compared to those with idiopathic NOA, no clinical or laboratory marker is able to determine whether a patient with NOA should or should not undergo microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) to have his testicular sperm retrieved. Further research is warranted to confirm the utility of evaluating the expression of noncoding RNAs in the seminal plasma, to individuate patients with NOA with higher probability of SSR

Selecting the most competent sperm for assisted reproductive technologies

International audienceThis paper discusses the variety of effective sperm selection techniques that have been developed for use in assisted reproductive technologies. Available methods for isolating the competent sperm in an ejaculate are outlined, as well as techniques for selecting single sperm for use in intracytoplasmic sperm injection procedures. Case-specific methods for selecting the most competent sperm are discussed, with reference to the potential causes of male factor infertility and guidance for the embryologist based on the issues present for each couple seeking treatment

Selecting the most competent sperm for assisted reproductive technologies

International audienceThis paper discusses the variety of effective sperm selection techniques that have been developed for use in assisted reproductive technologies. Available methods for isolating the competent sperm in an ejaculate are outlined, as well as techniques for selecting single sperm for use in intracytoplasmic sperm injection procedures. Case-specific methods for selecting the most competent sperm are discussed, with reference to the potential causes of male factor infertility and guidance for the embryologist based on the issues present for each couple seeking treatment