An International Multi-Center Evaluation of Type 5 Long QT Syndrome: A Low Penetrant Primary Arrhythmic Condition.

Background: Insight into type 5 long QT syndrome (LQT5) has been limited to case reports and small family series. Improved understanding of the clinical phenotype and genetic features associated with rare KCNE1 variants implicated in LQT5 was sought through an international multi-center collaboration. Methods: Patients with either presumed autosomal dominant LQT5 (N = 229) or the recessive Type 2 Jervell and Lange-Nielsen syndrome (JLNS2, N = 19) were enrolled from 22 genetic arrhythmia clinics and 4 registries from 9 countries. KCNE1 variants were evaluated for ECG penetrance (defined as QTc > 460ms on presenting ECG) and genotype-phenotype segregation. Multivariable Cox regression was used to compare the associations between clinical and genetic variables with a composite primary outcome of definite arrhythmic events, including appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks, aborted cardiac arrest, and sudden cardiac death. Results: A total of 32 distinct KCNE1 rare variants were identified in 89 probands and 140 genotype positive family members with presumed LQT5 and an additional 19 JLNS2 patients. Among presumed LQT5 patients, the mean QTc on presenting ECG was significantly longer in probands (476.9 ± 38.6ms) compared to genotype positive family members (441.8 ± 30.9ms, p<0.001). ECG penetrance for heterozygous genotype positive family members was 20.7% (29/140). A definite arrhythmic event was experienced in 16.9% (15/89) of heterozygous probands in comparison with 1.4% (2/140) of family members (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 11.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6-52.2; p=0.001). Event incidence did not differ significantly for JLNS2 patients relative to the overall heterozygous cohort (10.5% [2/19]; HR: 1.7, 95% CI: 0.3-10.8, p=0.590). The cumulative prevalence of the 32 KCNE1 variants in the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD), which is a human database of exome and genome sequencing data from now over 140,000 individuals, was 238-fold greater than the anticipated prevalence of all LQT5 combined (0.238% vs. 0.001%). Conclusions: The present study suggests that putative/confirmed loss-of-function KCNE1 variants predispose to QT-prolongation, however the low ECG penetrance observed suggests they do not manifest clinically in the majority of individuals, aligning with the mild phenotype observed for JLNS2 patients

Antisperm Antibody Testing: A Comprehensive Review of Its Role in the Management of Immunological Male Infertility and Results of a Global Survey of Clinical Practices

Antisperm antibodies (ASA), as a cause of male infertility, have been detected in infertile males as early as 1954. Multiple causes of ASA production have been identified, and they are due to an abnormal exposure of mature germ cells to the immune system. ASA testing (with mixed anti-globulin reaction, and immunobead binding test) was described in the WHO manual 5th edition and is most recently listed among the extended semen tests in the WHO manual 6th edition. The relationship between ASA and infertility is somewhat complex. The presence of sperm agglutination, while insufficient to diagnose immunological infertility, may indicate the presence of ASA. However, ASA can also be present in the absence of any sperm agglutination. The andrological management of ASA depends on the etiology and individual practices of clinicians. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the causes of ASA production, its role in immunological male infertility, clinical indications of ASA testing, and the available therapeutic options. We also provide the details of laboratory procedures for assessment of ASA together with important measures for quality control. Additionally, laboratory and clinical scenarios are presented to guide the reader in the management of ASA and immunological male infertility. Furthermore, we report the results of a recent worldwide survey, conducted to gather information about clinical practices in the management of immunological male infertility

Male oxidative stress infertility (MOSI): proposed terminology and clinical practice guidelines for management of idiopathic male infertility

Despite advances in the field of male reproductive health, idiopathic male infertility, in which a man has altered semen characteristics without an identifiable cause and there is no female factor infertility, remains a challenging condition to diagnose and manage. Increasing evidence suggests that oxidative stress (OS) plays an independent role in the etiology of male infertility, with 30% to 80% of infertile men having elevated seminal reactive oxygen species levels. OS can negatively affect fertility via a number of pathways, including interference with capacitation and possible damage to sperm membrane and DNA, which may impair the sperm's potential to fertilize an egg and develop into a healthy embryo. Adequate evaluation of male reproductive potential should therefore include an assessment of sperm OS. We propose the term Male Oxidative Stress Infertility, or MOSI, as a novel descriptor for infertile men with abnormal semen characteristics and OS, including many patients who were previously classified as having idiopathic male infertility. Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) can be a useful clinical biomarker for the classification of MOSI, as it takes into account the levels of both oxidants and reductants (antioxidants). Current treatment protocols for OS, including the use of antioxidants, are not evidence-based and have the potential for complications and increased healthcare-related expenditures. Utilizing an easy, reproducible, and cost-effective test to measure ORP may provide a more targeted, reliable approach for administering antioxidant therapy while minimizing the risk of antioxidant overdose. With the increasing awareness and understanding of MOSI as a distinct male infertility diagnosis, future research endeavors can facilitate the development of evidence-based treatments that target its underlying cause

Male Oxidative Stress Infertility (MOSI):proposed terminology and clinical practice guidelines for management of idiopathic male infertility

Despite advances in the field of male reproductive health, idiopathic male infertility, in which a man has altered semen characteristics without an identifiable cause and there is no female factor infertility, remains a challenging condition to diagnose and manage. Increasing evidence suggests that oxidative stress (OS) plays an independent role in the etiology of male infertility, with 30% to 80% of infertile men having elevated seminal reactive oxygen species levels. OS can negatively affect fertility via a number of pathways, including interference with capacitation and possible damage to sperm membrane and DNA, which may impair the sperm's potential to fertilize an egg and develop into a healthy embryo. Adequate evaluation of male reproductive potential should therefore include an assessment of sperm OS. We propose the term Male Oxidative Stress Infertility, or MOSI, as a novel descriptor for infertile men with abnormal semen characteristics and OS, including many patients who were previously classified as having idiopathic male infertility. Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) can be a useful clinical biomarker for the classification of MOSI, as it takes into account the levels of both oxidants and reductants (antioxidants). Current treatment protocols for OS, including the use of antioxidants, are not evidence-based and have the potential for complications and increased healthcare-related expenditures. Utilizing an easy, reproducible, and cost-effective test to measure ORP may provide a more targeted, reliable approach for administering antioxidant therapy while minimizing the risk of antioxidant overdose. With the increasing awareness and understanding of MOSI as a distinct male infertility diagnosis, future research endeavors can facilitate the development of evidence-based treatments that target its underlying cause

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

Technical aspects and clinical limitations of sperm DNA fragmentation testing in male infertility: a global survey, current guidelines, and expert recommendations.

PURPOSE: Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is a functional sperm abnormality that can impact reproductive potential, for which four assays have been described in the recently published sixth edition of the WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. The purpose of this study was to examine the global practices related to the use of SDF assays and investigate the barriers and limitations that clinicians face in incorporating these tests into their practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to complete an online survey on practices related to SDF diagnostic and treatment approaches. Their responses related to the technical aspects of SDF testing, current professional society guidelines, and the literature were used to generate expert recommendations via the Delphi method. Finally, challenges related to SDF that the clinicians encounter in their daily practice were captured. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 reproductive clinicians. Overall, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxyuridine triphosphate Nick-End Labeling (TUNEL) is the most commonly used assay chosen by 28.6%, followed by the sperm chromatin structure assay (24.1%), and the sperm chromatin dispersion (19.1%). The choice of the assay was largely influenced by availability (70% of respondents). A threshold of 30% was the most selected cut-off value for elevated SDF by 33.7% of clinicians. Of respondents, 53.6% recommend SDF testing after 3 to 5 days of abstinence. Although 75.3% believe SDF testing can provide an explanation for many unknown causes of infertility, the main limiting factors selected by respondents are a lack of professional society guideline recommendations (62.7%) and an absence of globally accepted references for SDF interpretation (50.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest global survey on the technical aspects of SDF testing as well as the barriers encountered by clinicians. Unified global recommendations regarding clinician implementation and standard laboratory interpretation of SDF testing are crucial

Controversy and consensus on indications for sperm DNA fragmentation testing in male infertility: a global survey, current guidelines, and expert recommendations.

PURPOSE: Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) testing was recently added to the sixth edition of the World Health Organization laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Many conditions and risk factors have been associated with elevated SDF; therefore, it is important to identify the population of infertile men who might benefit from this test. The purpose of this study was to investigate global practices related to indications for SDF testing, compare the relevant professional society guideline recommendations, and provide expert recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to take part in a global online survey on SDF clinical practices. This was conducted following the CHERRIES checklist criteria. The responses were compared to professional society guideline recommendations related to SDF and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations on indications for SDF testing were then formulated, and the Delphi method was used to reach consensus. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 experts from 55 countries. Almost 75% of respondents test for SDF in all or some men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, 39% order it routinely in the work-up of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), and 62.2% investigate SDF in smokers. While 47% of reproductive urologists test SDF to support the decision for varicocele repair surgery when conventional semen parameters are normal, significantly fewer general urologists (23%; p=0.008) do the same. Nearly 70% would assess SDF before assisted reproductive technologies (ART), either always or for certain conditions. Recurrent ART failure is a common indication for SDF testing. Very few society recommendations were found regarding SDF testing. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents the largest global survey on the indications for SDF testing in infertile men, and demonstrates diverse practices. Furthermore, it highlights the paucity of professional society guideline recommendations. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians

Controversy and consensus on the management of elevated sperm DNA fragmentation in male infertility: a global survey, current guidelines, and expert recommendations

PURPOSE: Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) has been associated with male infertility and poor outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The purpose of this study was to investigate global practices related to the management of elevated SDF in infertile men, summarize the relevant professional society recommendations, and provide expert recommendations for managing this condition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online global survey on clinical practices related to SDF was disseminated to reproductive clinicians, according to the CHERRIES checklist criteria. Management protocols for various conditions associated with SDF were captured and compared to the relevant recommendations in professional society guidelines and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations and consensus on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF were then formulated and adapted using the Delphi method. RESULTS: A total of 436 experts from 55 different countries submitted responses. As an initial approach, 79.1% of reproductive experts recommend lifestyle modifications for infertile men with elevated SDF, and 76.9% prescribe empiric antioxidants. Regarding antioxidant duration, 39.3% recommend 4-6 months and 38.1% recommend 3 months. For men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, and couples experiencing recurrent miscarriages associated with elevated SDF, most respondents refer to ART 6 months after failure of conservative and empiric medical management. Infertile men with clinical varicocele, normal conventional semen parameters, and elevated SDF are offered varicocele repair immediately after diagnosis by 31.4%, and after failure of antioxidants and conservative measures by 40.9%. Sperm selection techniques and testicular sperm extraction are also management options for couples undergoing ART. For most questions, heterogenous practices were demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents the results of a large global survey on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF and reveals a lack of consensus among clinicians. Furthermore, it demonstrates the scarcity of professional society guidelines in this regard and attempts to highlight the relevant evidence. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians

Sperm vitality and necrozoospermia: diagnosis, management, and results of a global survey of clinical practice

Sperm vitality testing is a basic semen examination that has been described in the World Health Organization (WHO) Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen from its primary edition, 40 years ago. Several methods can be used to test sperm vitality, such as the eosin-nigrosin (E-N) stain or the hypoosmotic swelling (HOS) test. In the 6th (2021) edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual, sperm vitality assessment is mainly recommended if the total motility is less than 40%. Hence, a motile spermatozoon is considered alive, however, in certain conditions an immotile spermatozoon can also be alive. Therefore, the differentiation between asthenozoospermia (pathological decrease in sperm motility) and necrozoospermia (pathological decrease in sperm vitality) is important in directing further investigation and management of infertile patients. The causes leading to necrozoospermia are diverse and can either be local or general, testicular or extra-testicular. The andrological management of necrozoospermia depends on its etiology. However, there is no standardized treatment available presently and practice varies among clinicians. In this study, we report the results of a global survey to understand current practices regarding the physician order of sperm vitality tests as well as the management practices for necrozoospermia. Laboratory and clinical scenarios are presented to guide the reader in the management of necrozoospermia with the overall objective of establishing a benchmark ranging from the diagnosis of necrozoospermia by sperm vitality testing to its clinical management

Antisperm antibody testing: a comprehensive review of its role in the management of immunological male infertility and results of a global survey of clinical practices

Antisperm antibodies (ASA), as a cause of male infertility, have been detected in infertile males as early as 1954. Multiple causes of ASA production have been identified, and they are due to an abnormal exposure of mature germ cells to the immune system. ASA testing (with mixed anti-globulin reaction, and immunobead binding test) was described in the WHO manual 5th edition and is most recently listed among the extended semen tests in the WHO manual 6th edition. The relationship between ASA and infertility is somewhat complex. The presence of sperm agglutination, while insufficient to diagnose immunological infertility, may indicate the presence of ASA. However, ASA can also be present in the absence of any sperm agglutination. The andrological management of ASA depends on the etiology and individual practices of clinicians. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the causes of ASA production, its role in immunological male infertility, clinical indications of ASA testing, and the available therapeutic options. We also provide the details of laboratory procedures for assessment of ASA together with important measures for quality control. Additionally, laboratory and clinical scenarios are presented to guide the reader in the management of ASA and immunological male infertility. Furthermore, we report the results of a recent worldwide survey, conducted to gather information about clinical practices in the management of immunological male infertility