Lack of compliance by UK andrology laboratories with World Health Organization recommendations for sperm morphology assessment

Unraveling the Impact of Sperm DNA Fragmentation on Reproductive Outcomes

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in identifying subcellular causes of male infertility, and sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) research has been at the forefront of this focus. DNA damage can occur during spermatogenesis due to faulty chromatin compaction or excessive abortive apoptosis. It can also happen as sperm transit through the genital tract, often induced by oxidative stress. There are several methods for SDF testing, with the sperm chromatin structure assay, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase d-UTI nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay, comet assay, and sperm chromatin dispersion test being the most commonly used. Numerous studies strongly support the negative impact of SDF on male fertility potential. DNA damage has been linked to various morphological and functional sperm abnormalities, ultimately affecting natural conception and assisted reproductive technology outcomes. This evidence-based review aims to explore how SDF influences male reproduction and provide insights into available therapeutic options to minimize its detrimental impact.

Do studies published in two leading reproduction journals between 2011 and 2020 demonstrate that they followed WHO5 recommendations for basic semen analysis?

STUDY QUESTION

Do publications that involve the interpretation of the results of a basic semen analysis, published in Human Reproduction and Fertility & Sterility between 2011 and 2020, give sufficient evidence in their methodology to demonstrate that they followed the technical methods recommended in the fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) laboratory manual, entitled WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen (WHO5)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Evidence of methodological agreement of studies with the WHO5 recommendations was low, despite 70% of papers stating that they followed WHO5 recommendations.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A basic semen analysis is currently an integral part of infertility investigations of the male, but method standardization in laboratories remains an issue. The different editions of the WHO manual for the basic semen analysis (WHO1-6) have attempted to address this by providing increasingly rigorous methodological protocols to reduce experimental error. However, to what extent these methods are followed by studies that involve the interpretation of the results of basic semen analysis remains unknown.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A survey of the technical methods used to perform a basic semen analysis was conducted on studies published in two leading reproduction journals (Human Reproduction and Fertility & Sterility) between 2011 and 2020.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The literature search was performed on the electronic databases PUBMED and MEDLINE Ovid between January 2021 and March 2021. The MeSH terms included in the search were 'sperm concentration' OR 'sperm motility' OR 'sperm morphology' OR 'sperm vitality' OR 'male fertility' AND 'human spermatozoa' NOT 'animals'. A total of 122 studies were available for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In total, 70% of the studies cited WHO5 in their methods section. Of the remaining studies, 10% cited the fourth edition of the WHO laboratory manual (WHO4), 7% cited both WHO4 and WHO5, 1% cited the third edition of the WHO laboratory manual (WHO3), and 12% did not cite the WHO at all. Overall methodological agreement with WHO5 recommendations was poor, with the main reason for this lack of agreement being that the research studies did not disclose specific details of the technical methods and equipment used.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

In the case of studies that did not disclose any specific technical methods that they used, we did not attempt to contact these authors and so were unable to confirm the agreement between their technical methods and WHO5 recommendations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our findings suggest there is an urgent need to develop strategies to address standardization in reporting the results of a semen analysis for publication. This is particularly timely given the recent publication of WHO6 and ISO standard 23162 for the basic examination of human semen.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

There was no funding for this project. C.L.R.B., as an employee of the University of Dundee, serves on the Scientific Advisory board of ExSeed Health (from October 2021, financial compensation to the University of Dundee) and is a scientific consultant for Exscientia (from September 2021, financial compensation to the University of Dundee). C.L.R.B. has previously received a fee from Cooper Surgical for lectures on scientific research methods outside the submitted work (2020) and Ferring for a lecture on male reproductive health (2021). C.L.R.B. is Editor for RBMO.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Evaluating an external quality assurance program for semen analysis in China during 2009-2020

INTRODUCTION

Semen analysis (SA) plays a key role in guiding treatments of male reproductive diseases and infertility due to male factors; however, it remains challenging to conduct an accurate SA due to lack of standardization, highly subjective assessments, and problems with automated procedures. Therefore, quality assurance (QA) and teaching courses are essential for making the laboratory results more consistent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The external quality assurance (EQA) scheme was organized by national human sperm bank technology training bases in Guangdong province in China between 2009 and 2020. Until 2020, 124 laboratories from China participated in the EQA program. The EQA scheme per year has been organized involving two semen aliquots for sperm concentration, two video recordings for motility, and two smears for sperm morphology. All samples used in the EQA scheme were obtained from different healthy donors or patients.

RESULTS

We estimated that the median coefficient of variation (CV) of sperm concentration, ignoring the method used, was 26.6%. Using a 100 µm deep counting chamber led to a decreasing CV of 13.6%. For sperm motility, the median CV of nonprogressive motility was high (50.8%), but the CV of progressive motility (13.2%), immotile sperm (14.3%), and total motility (11.8%) were acceptable. The morphology assessment revealed large variability (44.4%) irrespective of the classification criteria.

DISCUSSION

The reduction of interlaboratory variability is still a challenge during SA in China. Therefore, it is critical to increase awareness of joining EQA schemes and establish standardized training centers to follow WHO-recommended procedures toward Chinese standards.

The sixth edition of the WHO manual on semen examination: ensuring quality and standardization in basic examination of human ejaculates

A basic semen investigation has established principles that are necessary for ascertaining reliable and internationally comparable results. Although these principles have been present in the WHO manual since its inception, the baseline issue across most published studies and practice in reproductive medicine (in which the male is considered) is repetitive failure to adhere to these principles, thereby leading to relevant comparable data and accuracy. To address this failure, the sixth edition of the WHO manual includes revised basic methods, and a complementary formal standard of the International Standards Organization (ISO23162:2021) for basic semen examination has been published. Perhaps the most significant change in the sixth edition is the reintroduction of the four-category distinction of sperm motility, which causes additional work for laboratories in changing reporting parameters but is clinically important. Another essential change is the widened focus from mainly a prognostic tool for medically assisted reproduction to additionally raising awareness of semen examination as a measure of male reproductive functions and general male health.

Male infertility

It is estimated that infertility affects 8-12% of couples globally, with a male factor being a primary or contributing cause in approximately 50% of couples. Causes of male subfertility vary highly, but can be related to congenital, acquired, or idiopathic factors that impair spermatogenesis. Many health conditions can affect male fertility, which underscores the need for a thorough evaluation of patients to identify treatable or reversible lifestyle factors or medical conditions. Although semen analysis remains the cornerstone for evaluating male infertility, advanced diagnostic tests to investigate sperm quality and function have been developed to improve diagnosis and management. The use of assisted reproductive techniques has also substantially improved the ability of couples with infertility to have biological children. This Seminar aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of men with infertility, along with current controversies and future endeavours.

Performance of four chambers to measure sperm concentration: results from an external quality assurance programme

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the changes in the use of four types of counting chambers by laboratories enrolled in an Australian-based external quality assurance programme, and what are their accuracy and precision?

DESIGN

Samples of latex beads of known concentration up to 20 × 10⁶/ml were distributed quarterly to enrolled laboratories over a 12-year period. The results of each distribution were then used to calculate a bias relative to the target value as an indicator of accuracy and a coefficient of variation to indicate the level of precision.

RESULTS

The proportion of laboratories in 2007-2008 using improved Neubauer haemocytometers (44%), Makler® (9%) and Vetriplast chambers (19%) remained constant in 2018-2019, unlike Kova chamber users (20%), which reduced. The mean (range) bias of improved Neubauer haemocytometers (-2.8% [-22.5 to +32.0%]) was less than Makler® chambers (+17.0% [-2.9 to +41.2%]), Kova chambers (+33.9% [0.0 to 115.0%]) and Vetriplast chambers (+47.9% [0.0 to 170.0%]). The coefficient of variation of improved Neubauer haemocytometers (14.6% [8.7 to 25.0%]) was less than both Vetriplast (20.7% [8.8 to 36.4%]) and Makler® (24.1% [13.6 to 48.6%]) and Kova chambers (35.5% [15.9 to 123.0%]).

CONCLUSIONS

The improved Neubauer haemocytometer has been shown to be superior in accuracy and precision to the Makler®, Kova and Vetriplast chambers in their estimation of concentrations up to 20 × 10⁶/ml. Users of Makler® chambers, specifically designed for counting spermatozoa, should take care to monitor the performance of their own chambers, whereas Kova and Vetriplast chambers (designed for microscopic urinalysis) should not be used.

Adherence to WHO 2010 Recommendations in Relation to Semen Analysis Reports in the Laboratories of West Bengal

Background: In 2010, The World Health Organization (WHO) suggested the standards of reporting of semen analysis and the reference values. We tried to determine the adherence to the WHO 2010 standard regarding semen analysis among the laboratories of West Bengal.

Methods: An observational study was carried out by collecting the semen analysis reports from different laboratories. Compliance with the WHO 2010 recommendations regarding the reporting of semen analysis and references mentioned was subsequently analyzed.

Results: A total of 211 laboratory reports were collected; of which 15 were ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology)-laboratories (7%) and 196 were non-ART-laboratories (93%). More than half of the laboratories did not mention any reference values. Only 7.5% used the phrase “WHO 2010” as the reference. Only 3% of the laboratories reported all the six “important” parameters (volume, pH, sperm concentration, motility, morphology and vitality) and used the WHO 2010 references for all of them. The ART laboratories performed significantly better than their non-ART counterparts in reporting and quoting the WHO 2010 reference values.

Conclusion: Even nine years after its introduction, the compliance with the WHO 2010 recommendations on semen analysis was still low among our laboratories. There is need for increased awareness for the laboratory persons in this regard.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effect of lactolycopene on semen quality in healthy males

Purpose

Poor sperm quality is a major contributor to infertility in heterosexual couples, but at present there are few empirical therapies. Several studies have examined the role of dietary factors and data from randomized controlled trials suggest that oral antioxidant therapy can improve some sperm parameters. Health benefits of lycopene supplementation have been proposed for a variety of health conditions and here we examine whether it can help improve sperm quality. This study aimed to investigate the effect of 14 mg daily lactolycopene for 12 weeks on semen quality in healthy men.

Methods

Sixty healthy male participants were recruited and randomized to this double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel study and received either 14 mg/d lactolycopene or a placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was a change in motile sperm concentration. Secondary endpoints were all other aspects of sperm quality, including the level of sperm DNA damage.

Results

Fifty-six men completed the intervention and the level of plasma lycopene was significantly increased in the men randomized to receive lycopene supplementation. There was no significant change in the primary endpoint (motile sperm concentration) post-intervention (p = 0.058). However, the proportion of fast progressive sperm (p = 0.006) and sperm with normal morphology (p < 0.001) did improve significantly in response to lactolycopene intervention.

Conclusions

Supplementation with 14 mg/d lactolycopene improves sperm motility and morphology in young healthy men.

Clinical Trial Registry number and website

ISRCTN33248724 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN33248724

Improvement of cell counting method for Neubauer counting chamber

Background

We compared the cell counting accuracy of the conventional method and the improved method by using Neubauer counting chamber.

Methods

In the improved method, all the border cells were counted and then divided by two; while, in the conventional method, only border cells on the two boundaries (top and left) were counted.

Results

About 55.814% of the samples showed more accurate results by improved counting method, about 38.372% had more accurate results by conventional counting method, and about 5.814% were counted with similar counting error by both methods. The improved method had significantly smaller counting error than conventional method (P < .05). The distribution ratio of the border cells was an independent factor for counting accuracy (P < .05).

Conclusion

Together, the improved counting method can reduce the counting error of the Neubauer counting chamber to some extent, assess the distributing uniformity of border cells, and help to eliminate the samples with large differences in distribution.

Evaluation of the Standardization in Semen Analysis Performance According to the WHO Protocols Among Laboratories in Tehran, Iran

Background and Objective:

Infertility refers to the failure in achieving pregnancy of a couple after one year of regular sexual intercourse without using a protection method. The purpose of this research work was to evaluate the current status of the test and quality control performance in semen analysis in selected laboratories.

Material and Methods:

The semen analysis was performed in the Laboratory of Andrology in terms of macroscopic examination which include volume, color, viscosity, pH and acidity, and in terms of microscopy: the rate of sperm movement, the exact number of sperms per ml of semen, the percentage of sperm viability and movement, the presence of germ cells and white blood cells. Several questions for each part of the test were selected and answered by the director of the laboratories or andrology section supervisor.

Results:

There was a wide range in the performance of selected medical laboratories in Tehran regarding the standards of semen analysis according to the World Health Organization (WHO) Laboratory Manual for the examination and processing of human semen, fifth edition in 2010. They followed the instructions related to the sample collection in about 70% of the evaluated parameters, initial macroscopic examination in about 87% of the selected subjects, and the microscopic evaluation of sperm in about 65% of the test parameters.

Conclusion:

some laboratories do not follow the instructions of the WHO in performing semen analysis, and most of them do not follow the suggested methods in all parts of the test.

Inconsistent Adoption of World Health Organization V (2010) Semen Analysis Reference Ranges in the United States Eight Years After Publication

OBJECTIVE

To determine the percentage of laboratories in the United States that have adopted the World Health Organization 2010 (WHO 5) semen analysis (SA) reference values 6years after their publication.

METHODS

Laboratories were identified via 3 approaches: using the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) website, the CDC's 2015 Assisted Reproductive Technology Fertility Clinical Success Rate Report, and automated web searches. Laboratories were contacted by phone or email to obtain de-identified SA reports and reference ranges.

RESULTS

We contacted 617 laboratories in 46 states, of which 208 (26.7%) laboratories in 45 states were included in our analysis. 132 (63.5%) laboratories used WHO 5 criteria, 57 (27.4%) used WHO 4 criteria, and 19 (9.1%) used other criteria. WHO 5 criteria adoption rates varied by geographic region, ranging from 87.5% (35/40) in the Midwest to 50.0% (33/66) in the West. There was a greater adoption rate of WHO 5 reference values in academic affiliated (23/26, 88.5%) compared to non-academic affiliated laboratories (110/182, 60.4%) (P = .028).

CONCLUSION

While the majority of laboratories have adopted WHO 5 criteria following its release 6years ago, a large percentage (36.5%) use what is now considered outdated criteria. This variability could result in the characterization of a male's semen values as being "within reference range" at one center and "outside of reference range" at another. This inconsistency in classification may result in confusion for the both patient and physician and potentially shift the burden of infertility evaluation and treatment to the female partner.

Optimization of laboratory procedures for intrauterine insemination: survey of methods in relation to clinical outcome

BACKGROUND

There is a wide practice variation of used methods and outcomes in IUI in fertility laboratories. Standardization of the IUI procedure is important for reducing inconsistency among laboratories in counseling infertile couples and in pregnancy results. The aim of the study was to evaluate the currently used laboratory procedures of IUI in Dutch fertility laboratories and their effect on IUI pregnancy results. Additionally, the methods for semen analysis (SA) were evaluated, as SA is related to IUI in terms of inseminated sperm number and IUI counseling.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This questionnaire survey study was sent to laboratories participating in the Dutch external quality control program for semen analysis (SKML) and consisted of 46 questions concerning laboratory management, methods for semen analysis and IUI, and clinical results. The results were analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 52 laboratories (out of 99) provided information on used methodologies for SA or laboratory procedures of IUI and the organization of the laboratory. A wide variability was confirmed in used methods for both SA and IUI. Evaluation of pregnancy results obtained during 3 years (2013-2015) showed that specific used laboratory methods have a significant effect on the probability of becoming pregnant.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Important to remark is that in this survey study cycle-specific data, including variables of the individual couples (age, stimulation protocol, etc), were not included and may have effects on the results. The reported results provide an overview of the current practice performance; however, the organization of fertility laboratories is changing rapidly. The use of standardized methods in IUI is important for optimizing the performance of care and improving pregnancy results. The knowledge on used procedures, however, is limited, and further research on factors involving SA and the IUI procedure is necessary.

Techniques used for IUI: is it time for a change?

STUDY QUESTION

Are the guidelines for the technical aspects of IUI (WHO, 2010) still in accordance with the current literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In general, the laboratory guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) are a suitable protocol, although the evidence is not always conclusive and some changes are advisable.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Lack of standardization of the technical procedures required for IUI might result in inter-laboratory variation in pregnancy rates. Most centers still use their own materials and methods even though some guidelines are available.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A structural review focusing on the association between pregnancy rates and the procedures of semen collection (e.g. ejaculatory abstinence, collection place), semen processing (e.g. preparation method, temperature during centrifugation/storage), insemination (e.g. timing of IUI, bed rest after IUI) and the equipment used.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A literature search was performed in Medline and the Cochrane library. When no adequate studies of the impact of a parameter on pregnancy results were found, its association with sperm parameters was reviewed.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

For most variables, the literature review revealed a low level of evidence, a limited number of studies and/or an inadequate outcome measure. Moreover, the comparison of procedures (i.e. semen preparation technique, time interval between semen, collection, processing and IUI) revealed no consensus about their results. It was not possible to develop an evidence-based, optimal IUI treatment protocol.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The included studies exhibited a lack of standardization in inclusion criteria and methods used.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This review emphasizes the need for more knowledge about and standardization of assisted reproduction technologies. Our literature search indicates that some of the recommendations in the laboratory guidelines could be adapted to improve standardization, comfort, quality control and to cut costs.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The Dutch Foundation for Quality Assessment in Medical Laboratories (SKML), Nijmegen, The Netherlands. S.K. and W.N. have no conflicts of interest to disclose. C.B. and A.W. are members of the board of the SKML. With a grant from SKML, L.L. was paid for her time to perform the research and write the publication. D.B. received grants from Merck Serono, Ferring and MSD, outside the submitted work.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

A Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis on the clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing in specific male infertility scenarios

Background

Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is recognized as a leading cause of male infertility because it can impair the paternal genome through distinct pathophysiological mechanisms. Current evidence supports SDF as a major factor in the pathophysiology of several conditions, including varicocele, unexplained infertility, assisted reproductive technology failure, and environmental lifestyle factors, although the mechanisms involved have not been fully described yet. Measurement of the levels of DNA fragmentation in semen provides valuable information on the integrity of paternal chromatin and may guide therapeutic strategies. A recently published clinical practice guideline (CPG) highlighted how to use the information provided by SDF testing in daily practice, which triggered a series of commentaries by leading infertility experts. These commentaries contained an abundance of information and conflicting views about the clinical utility of SDF testing, which underline the complex nature of SDF.

Methods

A search of papers published in response to the CPG entitled “Clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing: practice recommendations based on clinical scenarios” was performed within the Translational Andrology and Urology (TAU) website (http://tau.amegroups.com/). The start and end dates for the search were May 2017 and August 2017, respectively. Each commentary meeting our inclusion criteria was rated as “supportive without reservation”, “supportive with reservation”, “not supportive” or “neutral”. We recorded whether articles discussed either SDF characteristics as a laboratory test method or clinical scenarios, or both. Subsequently, we extracted the particulars from each commentary and utilized the ‘Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats’ (SWOT) analysis to understand the perceived advantages and drawbacks of SDF as a specialized sperm function method in clinical practice.

Results

Fifty-eight fertility experts from six continents and twenty-two countries contributed commentaries. Overall, participants (87.9%; n=51) were supportive of the recommendations provided by the CPG on the utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios. The majority of participants made explicit remarks about both the clinical scenarios and SDF assays’ characteristics. Among ‘not supportive’ and ‘supportive with reservation’ participants, 75% (n=30/40) and 77.5% (n=31/40) expressed concerns related to technical limitations of SDF testing methods and clinical utility of the test in one or more clinical scenarios discussed in the CPG, respectively. The SWOT analysis revealed that the CPG provides a reasonable evidence-based proposal for integration of SDF testing in the routine daily practice. It also uncovered gaps of knowledge and threats limiting the widespread application of SDF in everyday practice, thus allowing the identification of opportunities to further refine SDF testing and its clinical utility.

Conclusions

The understanding of the role of SDF in male infertility requires an in-depth analysis of the multifactorial pathophysiological processes and the theories involved. The SWOT analysis allowed an objective evaluation of CPG on the clinical utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios and its accompanying commentaries written by global experts in all possible angles. Implementation of SDF testing in the clinic may not only increase the outcome of ART but more importantly improve the health of both fathers to be and resulting offspring.

Specialized sperm function tests in varicocele and the future of andrology laboratory

Varicocele is a common medical condition entangled with many controversies. Though it is highly prevalent in men with infertility, still it marks its presence in males who do have normal fertility. Determining which patients are negatively affected by varicocele would enable clinicians to better select those men who benefitted the most from surgery. Since conventional semen analysis has been limited in its ability to evaluate the negative effects of varicocele on fertility, a multitude of specialized laboratory tests have emerged. In this review, we examine the role and significance of specialized sperm function tests with regards to varicocele. Among the various tests, analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation and measurements of oxidative stress markers provide an independent measure of fertility in men with varicocele. These diagnostic modalities have both diagnostic and prognostic information complementary to, but distinct from conventional sperm parameters. Test results can guide management and aid in monitoring intervention outcomes. Proteomics, metabolomics, and genomics are areas; though still developing, holding promise to revolutionize our understanding of reproductive physiology, including varicocele.

Effect of varicocele on semen characteristics according to the new 2010 World Health Organization criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study investigated the effects of varicocele on semen parameters in infertile men based on the new 2010 World Health Organization laboratory manual for the examination of human semen. Semen analysis results (volume, sperm count, motility, and morphology) were the primary outcomes. An electronic search to collect the data was conducted using the Medline/PubMed, SJU discover, and Google Scholar databases. We searched articles published from 2010 to August 2015, i.e., after the publication of the 2010 WHO manual. We included only those studies that reported the actual semen parameters of adult infertile men diagnosed with clinical varicocele and contained a control group of either fertile men or normozoospermic men who were not diagnosed with varicocele. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1232 men. Varicocele was associated with reduced sperm count (mean difference: −44.48 × 10⁶ ml⁻¹; 95% CI: −61.45, −27.51 × 10⁶ ml⁻¹; P < 0.001), motility (mean difference: −26.67%; 95% CI: −34.27, −19.08; P < 0.001), and morphology (mean difference: −19.68%; 95% CI: −29.28, −10.07; P < 0.001) but not semen volume (mean difference: −0.23 ml; 95% CI: −0.64, 0.17). Subgroup analyses indicated that the magnitude of effect was influenced by control subtype but not WHO laboratory manual edition used for semen assessment. We conclude that varicocele is a significant risk factor that negatively affects semen quality, but the observed pooled effect size on semen parameters does not seem to be affected by the WHO laboratory manual edition. Given most of the studies published after 2010 still utilized the 1999 manual for semen analysis, further research is required to fully understand the clinical implication of the 2010 WHO laboratory manual on the association between varicocele and semen parameters.

[Inter-and intra-operator variability in the analysis of semen parameters: results from a quality control program]

Introduction

L’analyse du sperme est d’une importance majeure dans l’exploration de l'infertilité masculine. Afin de s’assurer de la fiabilité des résultats rendus, l’implantation du management de qualité en spermiologie est devenue une nécessité.Le but de ce travail a été d’évaluer la variabilité intra- et inter-opérateurau cours de l’analyse des paramètres spermatiques au sein de notre laboratoire de spermiologie, à travers la mise en place d’un programme de contrôle de qualité.

Méthodes

Quatre opérateurs ayant des niveaux d’expérience différents ont participé à l’étude. La variabilité inter-individuelle des résultats des lectures de la mobilité, la concentration et la morphologie spermatique a été évaluée sur plusieurs échantillons de sperme de qualités différentes. Pour chaque paramètre spermatique, la variabilité intra-individuelle a été évaluée en analysant les résultats des lectures de plusieurs aliquotes issus de chacun des échantillons utilisés.

Résultats

Les coefficients de variation moyens inter-opérateurs ont été de12.8%, 19.8% et 48.9% pour la mobilité, la concentration et la morphologie spermatique, respectivement. Les coefficients de variation moyens intra-opérateurs ont été de6.9%, 12.3%et 42.7% pour la mobilité, la concentration, et la morphologie spermatique, respectivement. Mis à part quelques écarts (erreurs aléatoires), la plupart des mesures réalisées ont été dans les limites d’acceptabilité pour l’ensemble des opérateurs.La variabilité de l’évaluation morphologique des spermatozoïdes a été particulièrement influencée par le niveau d’expérience de l’opérateur.

Conclusion

Les résultats de cette étude mettent l’accent sur la nécessité d’une formation adéquate du personnel de laboratoire, et de la participation régulière aux contrôles de qualité internes afin de minimiser les divergences et d’améliorer la fiabilité des résultats.

A systematic review of recent clinical practice guidelines and best practice statements for the evaluation of the infertile male

PURPOSE

We systematically identified and reviewed the methods and consistency of recommendations of recently developed clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and best practice statements (BPS) on the evaluation of the infertile male.

METHODS

MEDLINE and related engines as well as guidelines' Web sites were searched for CPG and BPS written in English on the general evaluation of male infertility published between January 2008 and April 2015.

RESULTS

Four guidelines were identified, all of which reported to have been recently updated. Systematic review was not consistently used in the BPS despite being reported in the CPG. Only one of them reported having a patient representative in its development team. The CPG issued by the European Association of Urology (EAU) graded some recommendations and related that to levels (but not quality) of evidence. Overall, the BPS issued respectively by the American Urological Association and American Society for Reproductive Medicine concurred with each other, but both differed from the EAU guidelines with regard to methods of collection, extraction and interpretation of data. None of the guidelines incorporated health economics. Important specific limitations of conventional semen analysis results were ignored by all guidelines. Besides variation in the methodological quality, implementation strategies were not reported in two out of four guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

While the various panels of experts who contributed to the development of the CPG and BPS reviewed should be commended on their tremendous efforts aiming to establish a clinical standard in both the evaluation and management of male infertility, we recognized inconsistencies in the methodology of their synthesis and in the contents of their final recommendations. These discrepancies pose a barrier in the general implementation of these guidelines and may limit their utility in standardizing clinical practice or improving health-related outcomes. Continuous efforts are needed to generate high-quality evidence to allow further development of these important guidelines for the evaluation and management of males suffering from infertility.

Sperm morphology training in India

Sperm morphology is regarded as possibly the most consistent sperm variable that is related to in vitro and in vivo fertilisation success or failure. There is also a re-emerging awareness of andrology, particularly in developing countries where healthcare resources are often limited. This study aimed to record the importance of hands-on training on the sperm morphology reading skills among 174 Indian infertility workers. During a series of five workshops presented by the Indian Academy of Clinical Embryologists, delegates were requested to record the percentage normal spermatozoa on pre-stained Diff Quick slides. A total of four slides each containing different percentages normal spermatozoa were used during the workshops. The delegates were requested to record the percentage normal spermatozoa prior and after training. The results were expressed as the percentage difference between the reference value and the pre-training and post-training values reported by the workshop delegates. The percentage difference indicated a significant improvement in the reading skills, for example from 253 ± 244% to 20 ± 93% for slide 1. Similar values were recorded for slide 2, 3 and 4. If we consider the present findings as representative of medical laboratory scientist's sperm morphology reading skills, clinicians should be concerned about the diagnostic quality as far as male infertility is concerned.

How accurate is sperm morphology as an indicator of sperm function?

Sperm morphology has been consistently correlated with fertilisation success or failure. The clinical relevance of the percentage normal spermatozoa has been a widely discussed topic amongst infertility specialists and scientists. This study aimed to evaluate the role of sperm morphology as an indicator of additional sperm functions among 114 andrology referrals. The sperm functions that were investigated included chromatin packaging quality (CMA3 test (n = 109), zona-induced acrosome reaction (ZIAR test; n = 36), hemizona assay (HZI; n = 36) and progressive motility (n = 47). Chromatin packaging quality had a negative and significant (P = 0.0001, r = -0.74) correlation with the percentage normal spermatozoa, while progressive motility had a significant and positive correlation (P = 0.0001, 0.59). Accurate sperm morphology scoring as described by the WHO 2010 manual can therefore be used as an indicator of specific sperm functions.

Occupation exposures and sperm morphology: a case-referent analysis of a multi-centre study

OBJECTIVE

We examined occupational exposures and sperm morphology to establish whether exposures implicated differed from those affecting motile sperm concentration.

METHODS

Computer aided sperm morphometric assessment was undertaken on morphology slides obtained as part of a multi-centre study in 1999-2002 of occupational factors in male infertility. Men attending 14 fertility clinics across the UK were recruited and gave a semen sample. Before results of the semen analysis were known, the men completed detailed questionnaires about their employment and lifestyle. Occupational exposures were assessed by occupational hygienists. Data were analysed using an unmatched case-referent design, allowing for clustering and for confounders. Three case definitions were used: poor morphology (normal morphology <4%), low motile sperm count (MSC) (<4.8×10(6)) and either condition.

RESULTS

Morphology results were available for 1861/2011 men employed at the time of recruitment. Of these 1861, 296 (15.9%) had poor morphology; of the 2011with sperm count, 453 (22.5%) had low MSC; 654/1981 (33.0%) had either condition. Poor morphology, adjusted for confounding, was related to self-reported lifetime exposure to lead (OR=1.33; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.75). Low MSC was also related to self-reported lead and to hygienist-assessed glycol ether exposure. Self-reported use of paint stripper (OR=1.47; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.03) and lead, but not glycol ether, were significantly related to the combined case definition.

CONCLUSIONS

While this study did not identify any occupational exposure uniquely related to sperm morphology, the capacity of the study to detect risk was increased by including morphology with sperm concentration and motility.

Geometric morphometrics of rodent sperm head shape

Mammalian spermatozoa, particularly those of rodent species, are extremely complex cells and differ greatly in form and dimensions. Thus, characterization of sperm size and, particularly, sperm shape represents a major challenge. No consensus exists on a method to objectively assess size and shape of spermatozoa. In this study we apply the principles of geometric morphometrics to analyze rodent sperm head morphology and compare them with two traditional morphometry methods, that is, measurements of linear dimensions and dimensions-derived parameters calculated using formulae employed in sperm morphometry assessments. Our results show that geometric morphometrics clearly identifies shape differences among rodent spermatozoa. It is also capable of discriminating between size and shape and to analyze these two variables separately. Thus, it provides an accurate method to assess sperm head shape. Furthermore, it can identify which sperm morphology traits differ between species, such as the protrusion or retraction of the base of the head, the orientation and relative position of the site of flagellum insertion, the degree of curvature of the hook, and other distinct anatomical features and appendices. We envisage that the use of geometric morphometrics may have a major impact on future studies focused on the characterization of sperm head formation, diversity of sperm head shape among species (and underlying evolutionary forces), the effects of reprotoxicants on changes in cell shape, and phenotyping of genetically-modified individuals.

Endocrine disruption: fact or urban legend?

Endocrine disruptors (EDs) are substances that cause adverse health effects via endocrine-mediated mechanisms in an intact organism or its progeny or (sub) populations. Purported EDCs in personal care products include 4-MBC (UV filter) or parabens that showed oestrogenic activity in screening tests, although regulatory toxicity studies showed no adverse effects on reproductive endpoints. Hormonal potency is the key issue of the safety of EDCs. Oestrogen-based drugs, e.g. the contraceptive pill or the synthetic oestrogen DES, possess potencies up to 7 orders of magnitude higher than those of PCP ingredients; yet, in utero exposure to these drugs did not adversely affect fertility or sexual organ development of offspring unless exposed to extreme doses. Additive effects of EDs are unlikely due to the multitude of mechanisms how substances may produce a hormone-like activity; even after uptake of different substances with a similar mode of action, the possibility of additive effects is reduced by different absorption, metabolism and kinetics. This is supported by a number of studies on mixtures of chemical EDCs. Overall, despite of 20 years of research a human health risk from exposure to low concentrations of exogenous chemical substances with weak hormone-like activities remains an unproven and unlikely hypothesis.

The impact of sperm DNA damage in assisted conception and beyond: recent advances in diagnosis and treatment

Sperm DNA damage is a useful biomarker for male infertility diagnosis and prediction of assisted reproduction outcomes. It is associated with reduced fertilization rates, embryo quality and pregnancy rates, and higher rates of spontaneous miscarriage and childhood diseases. This review provides a synopsis of the most recent studies from each of the authors, all of whom have major track records in the field of sperm DNA damage in the clinical setting. It explores current laboratory tests and the accumulating body of knowledge concerning the relationship between sperm DNA damage and clinical outcomes. The paper proceeds to discuss the strengths, weaknesses and clinical applicability of current sperm DNA tests. Next, the biological significance of DNA damage in the male germ line is considered. Finally, as sperm DNA damage is often the result of oxidative stress in the male reproductive tract, the potential contribution of antioxidant therapy in the clinical management of this condition is discussed. DNA damage in human spermatozoa is an important attribute of semen quality. It should be part of the clinical work up and properly controlled trials addressing the effectiveness of antioxidant therapy should be undertaken as a matter of urgency. Sperm DNA damage is a useful biomarker for male infertility diagnosis and prediction of assisted reproduction outcomes. It is associated with reduced fertilization rates, embryo quality and pregnancy rates, and higher rates of spontaneous miscarriage and childhood diseases. With all of these fertility check points, it shows more promise than conventional semen parameters from a diagnostic perspective. Despite this, few infertility clinics use it routinely. This review provides a synopsis of the most recent studies from each of the authors, all of whom have major track records in the field of sperm DNA damage in the clinical setting. It explores current laboratory tests and the accumulating body of knowledge concerning the relationship between sperm DNA damage and clinical outcomes. The paper proceeds to discuss the strengths and weaknesses and clinical applicability of current sperm DNA fragmentation tests. Next, the biological significance of DNA damage in the male germ line is considered. Finally, as sperm DNA damage is often the result of increased oxidative stress in the male reproductive tract, the potential contribution of antioxidant therapy in the clinical management of this condition is discussed. As those working in this field of clinical research, we conclude that DNA damage in human spermatozoa is an important attribute of semen quality which should be carefully assessed in the clinical work up of infertile couples and that properly controlled trials addressing the effectiveness of antioxidant therapy should be undertaken as a matter of urgency.

Semen analysis standardization: is there any problem in Polish laboratories?

The aim of the study was to determine the degree of compliance of Polish laboratories with World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations, with regard to semen analysis methodology. A survey requesting information about methods of semen analysis was distributed to employees of 55 laboratories. Respondents who had participated in external seminological workshops (31%) were termed certified respondents (CR), the remaining (69%)-non-certified respondents (NCR). Only one laboratory (6%) in the CR group and none in the NCR were compliant with WHO guidelines for methods and equipment used to evaluate seminal volume, sperm motility, concentration, vitality and morphology. Most problems were of volume measurement (weighing method was reported by 17% of CR and 10% of NCR) and staining method for sperm morphology (Papanicolau or Diff-Quik were found in 33% of CR and 23% of NCR). A three- or four-point grading of sperm motility was used by the majority of respondents; however, 17% of CR and 37% of NCR did not use a laboratory counter to tally spermatozoa. Although a haemocytometer method was used by 80% of laboratories in each group, the improved Neubauer chamber was used only by 42% of CR and 19% of NCR. In each group, 24% of laboratories did not perform a vitality test. Procedural errors and the interchangeable utilization of two or even three methods to analyse a given parameter was observed in both groups. The results indicate a need for standardisation of the methods and continuous, unified training in semen analysis in Polish laboratories.

Scoring human sperm morphology using Testsimplets and Diff-Quik slides

OBJECTIVE

To compare two staining methods to assess sperm morphology: Diff-Quik (DQ), which is the fastest of the recommended techniques, and Testsimplets (TS), a technique that uses prestained slides and is quite popular in in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

Patients at the Sterility Center of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit of the Hospital of S.S. Cosma and Damiano (Azienda USL 3 of Pistoia, Italy).

PATIENT(S)

104 randomly enrolled male patients evaluated by the seminology laboratory.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Statistical comparison of sperm morphology results obtained after staining of semen samples both with DQ and TS.

RESULT(S)

Our data show that TS gives a statistically significantly lower number of normal forms than DQ (median: 6% [range: 0-29%] vs. 12% [range: 0-40%], respectively) as well as an overestimation of sperm head defects (median: 92.0% [range: 67%-100%] vs. 82.3% [range: 55%-100%], respectively).

CONCLUSION(S)

The two staining methods should not be considered equivalent. Specifically, the lower reference limit established by the World Health Organization is not appropriate when sperm morphology is assessed by TS. The routine application of TS in the evaluation of sperm morphology is therefore not recommended because it leads to an overestimation of patients with sperm morphology values below the lower reference limit (4%), thus potentially influencing clinical decisions.

The importance of semen analysis in the context of azoospermia

Azoospermia is a descriptive term referring to ejaculates that lack spermatozoa without implying a specific underlying cause. The traditional definition of azoospermia is ambiguous, which has ramifications on the diagnostic criteria. This issue is further compounded by the apparent overlap between the definitions of oligospermia and azoospermia. The reliable diagnosis of the absence of spermatozoa in a semen sample is an important criterion not only for diagnosing male infertility but also for ascertaining the success of a vasectomy and for determining the efficacy of hormonal contraception. There appears to be different levels of rigor in diagnosing azoospermia in different clinical situations, which highlights the conflict between scientific research and clinical practice in defining azoospermia.

Ten years' experience with an external quality control program for semen analysis

OBJECTIVE

To gauge the performance of laboratories and impact of the German semen analysis external quality control program (QuaDeGA) over its first 10 years.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of QuaDeGA's twice yearly distribution of fixed semen samples and electronic material documenting sperm motility. Ranking of each participant's responses was determined according to their relation to a "target window."

SETTING

Multicenter. PAITENT(S): Healthy donors.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Laboratory performance, World Health Organization (WHO) adherence.

RESULT(S)

Over 19 runs, there was a steady increase of participants (280 laboratories), the largest group being private urologic practices. Although use of WHO-recommended Neubauer chamber (from 33% to 55%) and diluent (from 11% to 32%) increased, the opposite occurred with morphology staining protocols (from 41% to 19%). Overall, <8% of laboratories truly followed WHO guidelines. Median-based comparisons, replacing reference laboratories, resulted in a merging of performance rankings regardless of the protocols used.

CONCLUSION(S)

Adherence to WHO recommendations is low, with the majority of laboratories using methods expressly opposed by the guidelines. Participation in QuaDeGA was found to improve the performance of the laboratories involved in the program. However, the use of median-based ranking, while decreasing the extent of variance between laboratories, brings into question the significance of the rankings.

Semen analysis and sperm function testing

Despite controversy regarding the clinical value of semen analysis, male fertility investigation still relies on a standardized analysis of the semen parameters. This is especially true for infertility clinics in both developing and developed countries. Other optional tests or sophisticated technologies have not been widely applied. The current review addresses important changes in the analysis of semen as described in the new World Health Organization (WHO) manual for semen analysis. The most important change in the manual is the use of evidence-based publications as references to determine cutoff values for normality. Apart from the above mentioned changes, the initial evaluation and handling methods remain, in most instances, the same as in previous editions. Furthermore, the review evaluates the importance of quality control in andrology with emphasis on the evaluation of sperm morphology. WHO sperm morphology training programmes for Sub-Saharan countries were initiated at Tygerberg Hospital in 1995. The external quality control programme has ensured that the majority of participants have maintained their morphological reading skills acquired during initial training. This review reports on current sperm functional tests, such as the induced acrosome reaction, and sperm-zona pellucida binding assays, as well as the impact of sperm quality in terms of DNA integrity, and the relationship of sperm function tests to sperm morphology.

Diagnostic tools in male infertility-the question of sperm dysfunction

Sperm dysfunction is the single most common cause of infertility, yet what is remarkable is that, there is no drug a man can take or add to his spermatozoa in vitro to improve fertility. One reason for the lack of progress in this area is that our understanding of the cellular and molecular workings of the mature spermatazoon is limited. However, over the last few years there has been considerable progress in our knowledge base and in addressing new methods to diagnose sperm dysfunction. We review the current state of the field and provide insights for further development. We conclude that: (i) there is little to be gained from more studies identifying/categorizing various populations of men using a basic semen assessment, where an effort is required in making sure the analysis is performed in an appropriate high quality way; (ii) technological development is likely to bring the reality of sperm function testing closer to implementation into the clinical pathways. In doing this, these assays must be robust, cheap (or more appropriately termed cost effective), easy to use and clinically useful; and (iii) clinical necessity, e.g., the need to identify the highest quality spermatozoon for injection is driving basic research forward. This is an exciting time to be an andrologist and, likely, a fruitful one.

Practical semen analysis: from A to Z

Accurate semen analysis is critical for decisions about patient care, as well as for studies addressing overall changes in semen quality, contraceptive efficacy and effects of toxicant exposure. The standardization of semen analysis is very difficult for many reasons, including the use of subjective techniques with no standards for comparison, poor technician training, problems with proficiency testing and a reluctance to change techniques. The World Health Organization (WHO) Semen handbook (2010) offers a vastly improved set of standardized procedures, all at a level of detail that will preclude most misinterpretations. However, there is a limit to what can be learned from words and pictures alone. A WHO-produced DVD that offers complete demonstrations of each technique along with quality assurance standards for motility, morphology and concentration assessments would enhance the effectiveness of the manual. However, neither the manual nor a DVD will help unless there is general acknowledgement of the critical need to standardize techniques and rigorously pursue quality control to ensure that laboratories actually perform techniques 'according to WHO' instead of merely reporting that they have done so. Unless improvements are made, patient results will continue to be compromised and comparison between studies and laboratories will have limited merit.

Comments on the release of the 5th edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen

The authors of the World Health Organization Semen Analysis Manual are to be congratulated on producing a new edition; it is an essential tool to disseminate good practice in andrology. However, the tests described have poor prognostic power to predict a man's fertility and show little about the underlying causes of sub-fertility. This commentary urges a revival of research into the diagnosis of male fertility. It suggests that fertility should be regarded as a continuum and that the artificial binary division between fertile and infertile should be abandoned. Models to predict a sub-fertile couple's chance of conception in a year should be developed on the basis of prospective data. These models would allow for sophisticated decision making about management. The future lies in the identification of tests to detect underlying pathologies open to specific treatment. Leads such as oxidative stress, defects in the intracellular regulation and the developing field of proteomics should be explored.

Semenology training programs: 8 years' experience

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the immediate effect of hands-on training on the quality of technical skills of laboratory technicians.

DESIGN

Retrospective analytical study.

SETTING

Academic institutions and private infertility clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and ten laboratory technicians.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

First, 110 participants from 16 African countries attended 5-day semenology workshops at Tygerberg Hospital. During these workshops the methodology as described by the World Health Organization manual for the analysis of human semen, namely, sperm concentration, motility, vitality, and morphology, formed part of the curriculum. Second, two experienced morphology readers from the Tygerberg group presented 23 1-day sperm morphology workshops in nine other countries.

RESULT(S)

The semenology workshops indicated a significant improvement in the evaluation of sperm concentration only, whereas pretraining and posttraining results for motility did not differ. Vitality reports did not differ from those of the experienced worker in the first place. Calculation by means of a linear regression model showed a significant decrease in the mean posttraining scores from the pretraining scores for the sperm morphology courses.

CONCLUSION(S)

Training improved technical skills for the evaluation of morphology and sperm concentration. The evaluation of graded sperm motility seems to be more difficult to teach over a short period.