Association between semen parameters and chance of fatherhood - a long-term follow-up study

Trend of change of sperm count and concentration over the last two decades: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the 1970s, several studies found that sperm concentration (SC) and total sperm count (TSC) constantly worsened over time, mainly in high-income countries.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether the decreasing trend in sperm count is continuing in Western European countries and USA, we performed a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Embase and Pubmed/Medline were searched papers published in English in the 2000-2020 period limiting the search to data collected in the USA and Western European countries.

RESULTS

We identified 62 articles and pooled information on 24,196 men (range 10-2,523), collected from 1993 to 2018. Considering all the studies, random-effects meta-regression analyses showed no significant trend for SC (slope per year -0.07 mil/mL, p-value = 0.86). Negative trends of SC were detected in Scandinavian countries (slope per year -1.11 mil/mL, 95% CI: -2.40 to +0.19; p-value = 0.09), but the findings were statistically not significant. No significant trends of SC were detected in Central Europe (slope per year +0.23, 95% CI -2.51 to +2.96; p-value = 0.87), the USA (slope per year +1.08, 95% CI -0.42 to +2.57; p-value = 0.16), and Southern Europe (slope per year +0.19, 95% CI -0.99 to +1.37; p-value = 0.75). We have analyzed separately findings from studies including sperm donors, fertile men, young unselected men (unselected men, study mean age < 25 years) and unselected men (unselected men, study mean age ≥ 25 years). No significant trends of SC were observed among sperm donors (slope per year -2.80, 95% CI -6.76 to +1.17; p-value 0.16), unselected men (slope per year -0.23, 95% CI -1.58 to +1.12; p-value 0.73), young unselected men (slope per year -0.49, 95% CI -1.76 to +0.79; p-value 0.45), fertile men (slope per year +0.29, 95% CI -1.09 to +1.67; p-value 0.68).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The results of this analysis show no significant trends in SC, in USA, and selected Western European countries.

Longitudinal semen parameter assessments and live birth: variability and implications for treatment strategies

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether semen parameters are associated with live birth among couples seeking infertility treatment after accounting for semen parameter variability.

DESIGN

Folic Acid and Zinc Supplementation Trial (FAZST) prospective cohort.

SETTING

Four US reproductive endocrinology and infertility care study centers, 2013-2017.

PATIENT(S)

Couples (n = 2,369) seeking fertility consultations at 4 US infertility care study centers.

INTERVENTION(S)

Semen volume, pH, sperm viability, morphology, progressive and total motility, concentration, count, and total and progressive motile count assessed at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months after enrollment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Log-binomial models stratified by fertility treatment received (in vitro fertilization [IVF], intrauterine insemination [IUI], ovulation induction [OI], or no treatment) estimated risk differences (RDs) between semen parameter quartiles and live birth and accounted for multiple semen assessments per person. We accounted for abstinence time, the biological interdependence of semen parameters, and potential selection bias because of loss to follow-up.

RESULT(S)

Among couples using OI only or no treatment, 39% had a live birth, and relative to the highest quartile, the lowest quartiles of morphology (RD, -19 [95% CI, -23 to -15] per 100 couples), motility (RD, -13 [95% CI, -17 to -9]), concentration (RD, -22 [95% CI, -26 to -19]), and total motile count (RD, -18 [95% CI, -22 to -14]) were associated with fewer live births. For IUI, 26% had a live birth, and the lowest quartiles of volume (RD, -6 [95% CI, -11 to -0.4]), concentration (RD, -6 [95% CI, -11 to -0.1]), count (RD, -10 [95% CI, -15 to -4]), and total motile count (RD, -7 [95% CI, -13 to -1]) were associated with fewer live births. For IVF, 61% had a live birth, and only morphology (Q1 RD, -7 [95% CI, -14 to 0.2]; Q2 RD, -10 [95% CI, -17 to -2.2]) was associated with live birth.

CONCLUSION(S)

Semen parameters are critical in couples undergoing OI/IUI. Only low morphology was important for live birth after IVF. Although data supporting the use of semen parameters are fragmented across differing populations, current findings are generalizable across the range of male fertility and couple fertility treatments, providing evidence about which semen parameters are most relevant in which settings.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT#01857310.

Recategorisation of body mass index to achieve andrological predictive power: a study in more than 20 000 patients

The aim of this study was to recategorise body mass index (BMI) in order to classify patients according to their risk of semen abnormalities. Patients (n=20563) presenting at an andrology laboratory were classified into five groups according to BMI: underweight (BMI <20kg m-2), normal weight (BMI 20-24.9kg m-2), overweight (BMI 25-29.9kg m-2), obese (BMI 30-39.9kg m-2) and morbidly obese (BMI >40kg m-2). Semen quality was evaluated to determine: (1) differences between groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA); (2) the chances of semen abnormalities (using generalised linear models, Chi-squared tests and odds ratios); (3) reference BMI values with andrological predictive power (multivariate conglomerate analyses and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)); and (4) expected values of abnormalities for each new group resulting from BMI recategorisation. Morbidly obese and underweight patients exhibited the highest decrease in semen quality and had higher chances of semen abnormalities. The smallest number of sperm abnormalities was found at a BMI of 27kg m-2. Four reference values were identified, recategorising BMI into four groups according to their risk of semen abnormalities (from lowest to highest risk): Group1,BMI between 20 and 32kg m-2; Group2, BMI <20 and BMI >32-37kg m-2; Group3, BMI >37-42kg m-2; and Group4, BMI >42kg m-2. A BMI <20 or >32kg m-2 is negatively associated with semen quality; these negative associations on semen quality increase from a BMI >37kg m-2 and increase even further for BMI >42kg m-2. The BMI recategorisation in this study has andrological predictive power.