Low-dose prednisolone does not improve the outcome of in-vitro fertilization in male immunological infertility

The association of medications and supplements with human male reproductive health: a systematic review

Some medications used to treat comorbidities and conditions in reproductive-aged individuals could have a negative impact on fertility. This may occur through hormonal disruption, toxicity to germ cells and spermatozoa, functional impact on the sperm, teratogenicity potential, or ejaculatory abnormalities. Having knowledge of these potential interactions between medications and reproductive potential is important for clinicians to be aware of and guide the patient, along with their treating clinicians, to reproductively favorable alternatives when available. This review aims to summarize the state of the literature regarding medication interactions with human male reproduction using the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System of medications.

Diagnostic and therapeutic workup of male infertility: results from a Delphi consensus panel

Male factor infertility (MFI) is a rising issue worldwide with significant socioeconomic costs and negative psychological consequences for the couple. Current guidelines provide recommendations for its diagnosis and treatment but several gaps in the management of MFI are encountered in clinical practice due to the lack of available evidence in published literature. Uncertainty in the management of MFI cases leads to a high degree of variability in therapeutic approaches. We planned a Delphi consensus method to provide insights and help bridge the gaps that separate clinical guidelines from real-world practice. The Advisory Board collected 41 statements on debated topics in the management of MFI, each including multiple items designed as a 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaire was sent by e-mail to a panel of Italian experts for a first round of voting; members of the panel were later invited to a second round of voting, preceded by discussion of the "hot topics" identified in the first round. At both rounds of the Delphi consensus 68 experts participated to the voting process. After the first round 25 statements were identified as hot topics, and these underwent the second round of voting. Consensus was reached on many, but not all cases, leaving vagueness on few debated topics where decisions are unsupported by clinical studies or driven by controversial results. In conclusion, indications emerging from this large panel of experts may help guide the management of male factor infertility in clinical practice. Studies are needed to address unanswered questions left by cases for whom no consensus was reached.

The current status and future of andrology: A consensus report from the Cairo workshop group

BACKGROUND

In attempting to formulate potential WHO guidelines for the diagnosis of male infertility, the Evidence Synthesis Group noted a paucity of high-quality data on which to base key recommendations. As a result, a number of authors suggested that key areas of research/evidence gaps should be identified, so that appropriate funding and policy actions could be undertaken to help address key questions.

OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of this Consensus workshop was to clarify current knowledge and deficits in clinical laboratory andrology, so that clear paths for future development could be navigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following a detailed literature review, each author, prior to the face-to-face meeting, prepared a summary of their topic and submitted a PowerPoint presentation. The topics covered were (a) Diagnostic testing in male fertility and infertility, (b) Male fertility/infertility in the modern world, (c) Clinical management of male infertility, and (d) The overuse of ICSI. At the meeting in Cairo on February 18, 2019, the evidence was presented and discussed and a series of consensus points agreed.

RESULTS

The paper presents a background and summary of the evidence relating to these four topics and addresses key points of significance. Following discussion of the evidence, a total of 36 consensus points were agreed.

DISCUSSION

The Discussion section presents areas where there was further debate and key areas that were highlighted during the day.

CONCLUSION

The consensus points provide clear statements of evidence gaps and/or potential future research areas/topics. Appropriate funding streams addressing these can be prioritized and consequently, in the short and medium term, answers provided. By using this strategic approach, andrology can make the rapid progress necessary to address key scientific, clinical, and societal challenges that face our discipline now and in the near future.

The role of immunotherapy in in vitro fertilization: a guideline

Adjuvant immunotherapy treatments in in vitro fertilization (IVF) aim to improve the outcome of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in both the general ART population as well as subgroups such as patients with recurrent miscarriage or implantation failure. The purpose of this guideline is to evaluate the role of immunomodulating therapy in ART. Unfortunately, many of the evaluated therapies lack robust evidence from well-designed adequately powered randomized controlled trials to support their use. Immunotherapies reviewed in the present document are either not associated with improved live-birth outcome in IVF or have been insufficiently studied to make definitive recommendations.

Glucocorticoid supplementation during ovarian stimulation for IVF or ICSI

BACKGROUND

Ovarian response to stimulation during in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) plays an important role in determining live birth rates. Adjuvant treatments during ovarian stimulation that have different modes of action have been used to improve ovarian response to stimulation and outcome of IVF. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are a class of steroid hormones that have been used either alone or in combination with other stimulatory regimens in order to improve folliculogenesis and pregnancy rates. However, considerable uncertainty remains over whether administration of glucocorticoid during ovarian stimulation until oocyte recovery is superior to no glucocorticoid in improving live birth rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and effectiveness of systemic glucocorticoids during ovarian stimulation for IVF and ICSI cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to 10 October 2016. We handsearched reference lists of articles, trial registers and relevant conference proceedings and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant treatment with systemic glucocorticoids during ovarian stimulation for IVF or ICSI cycles versus no adjuvant treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. Our primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and side-effects. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled the data using a fixed-effect model. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs were included in the review (416 women). The trials compared glucocorticoid supplementation during IVF stimulation versus placebo. Two of the studies had data in a form that we could not enter into analysis, so results include data from only two trials (310) women. For the outcome of live birth, data were available for only 212 women, as the larger study had data available from only one study centre.One of the studies gave inadequate description of randomisation methods, but the other was at low risk of bias in all domains. The evidence was rated as low or very low quality for all outcomes, mainly due to imprecision, with low sample sizes and few events.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference between the groups in live birth rate (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.58; 2 RCTs, n = 212, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with placebo is assumed to be 15%, the chance following supplementation would be between 7% and 31%. There was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.90; 2 RCTs, n = 310, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).The evidence suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy with placebo is assumed to be 24%, the chance following treatment with glucocorticoid supplementation would be between 23% and 47%. There was also insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference between the groups in multiple-pregnancy rate (OR 3.32 , 95% CI 0.12 to 91.60; 1 RCT , n = 20, very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.05 to 18.57; 1 RCT, n = 20, very low-quality evidence). Neither of the studies reported OHSS or side-effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The safety and effectiveness of glucocorticoid administration in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF/ICSI cycles (until the day of oocyte retrieval) is unclear due to the small number of studies and low event rates. Whilst glucocorticoids possible increase the clinical pregnancy rate, there may be little or no impact on live birth rate. More research is needed.

Immunosuppressants and Male Reproduction

Prolonged use of immunosuppressant medications is occasionally seen in infertile men with chronic inflammatory conditions; autoimmune disorders; or an organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Chronic inflammation impacts negatively on male reproductive endpoints, so immunosuppressant therapy can produce improvements. Corticosteroids have been used to treat antisperm antibodies and even as an empirical treatment for male infertility in general. Trials of these methods have provided mixed results on semen quality and fertility, with improvement, no change and negative effects reported by different investigators. In a substantial number of observational studies, patients on long-term therapy with prednisone for chronic inflammatory disease, testosterone levels were lower compared to untreated controls, though randomized controlled trials have not been conducted. Similarly decreases in testosterone have been reported in men receiving corticosteroids to minimize transplant rejection; however, most were treated with multiple immunosuppressive medications that may have contributed to this effect. A large number of trials of healthy men treated with corticosteroids have shown some disruption in reproductive hormone levels, but other studies reported no effect. Studies in monkeys, rats (at human equivalent dose), cattle, sheep, and horses have shown endocrine disruption, including low testosterone with dexamethasone treatment. Of the cytostatic immunosuppressives, which have high potential for cellular damage, cyclophosphamide has received the most attention, sometimes lowering sperm counts significantly. Methotrexate may decrease sperm numbers in humans and has significant negative impacts in rodents. Other chemotherapeutic drugs used as immunosuppressants are likely to impact negatively on male fertility endpoints, but few data have been collected. The TNF-α Inhibitors have also received little experimental attention. There is some evidence that the immunophilin modulators: cyclosporine, sirolimus, and everolimus cause endocrine disruption and semen quality impairment. As we review in this chapter, results in experimental species are concerning, and well-designed studies are lacking for the effects of these medications on reproductive endpoints in men.