Oxidative stress occurs when the production of potentially destructive reactive oxygen species (ROS) exceeds the bodies own natural antioxidant defenses, resulting in cellular damage. Oxidative stress is a common pathology seen in approximately half of all infertile men. ROS, defined as including oxygen ions, free radicals and peroxides are generated by sperm and seminal leukocytes within semen and produce infertility by two key mechanisms. First, they damage the sperm membrane, decreasing sperm motility and its ability to fuse with the oocyte. Second, ROS can alter the sperm DNA, resulting in the passage of defective paternal DNA on to the conceptus. This review will provide an overview of oxidative biochemistry related to sperm health and will identify which men are most at risk of oxidative infertility. Finally, the review will outline methods available for diagnosing oxidative stress and the various treatments available.

/pdf/oxidative-stress-and-male-infertility-a-clinical-perspective-2nu3kdi0jn.pdf

Oxidative stress and male infertility—a clinical perspective

https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Jungwirth-A-et-al-Eur-Urol-2012-622342-EAU-Guidelines-on-Male-Infertility-the-2012-update.pdf

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Male Infertility: The 2012 Update

Background
Between 30% to 80% of male subfertility cases are considered to be due to the damaging effects of oxidative stress on sperm and 1 man in 20 will be affected by subfertility. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments and many men are already using these to improve their fertility. It is thought that oral supplementation with antioxidants may improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative stress. Pentoxifylline, a drug that acts like an antioxidant, was also included in this review.  

Objectives
This Cochrane review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation with antioxidants for subfertile male partners in couples seeking fertility assistance.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED databases (from inception until January 2014); trial registers; sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. An updated search was run in August 2014 when potentially eligible studies were placed in 'Studies awaiting assessment'.

Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type or dose of antioxidant supplement (single or combined) taken by the subfertile male partner of a couple seeking fertility assistance with a placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates, adverse events, sperm DNA fragmentation, sperm motility and concentration. Data were combined, where appropriate, to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE methods.  

Main results
This updated review included 48 RCTs that compared single and combined antioxidants with placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant in a population of 4179 subfertile men. The duration of the trials ranged from 3 to 26 weeks with follow up ranging from 3 weeks to 2 years. The men were aged from 20 to 52 years. Most of the men enrolled in these trials had low total sperm motility and sperm concentration. One study enrolled men after varicocelectomy, one enrolled men with a varicocoele, and one recruited men with chronic prostatitis. Three trials enrolled men who, as a couple, were undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and one trial enrolled men who were part of a couple undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI). Funding sources were stated by 15 trials. Four of these trials stated that funding was from a commercial source and the remaining 11 obtained funding through non-commercial avenues or university grants. Thirty-three trials did not report any funding sources.

A limitation of this review was that in a sense we had included two different groups of trials, those that reported on the use of antioxidants and the effect on live birth and clinical pregnancy, and a second group that reported on sperm parameters as their primary outcome and had no intention of reporting the primary outcomes of this review. We included 25 trials reporting on sperm parameters and only three of these reported on live birth or clinical pregnancy. Other limitations included poor reporting of study methods, imprecision, the small number of trials providing usable data, the small sample size of many of the included studies and the lack of adverse events reporting. The evidence was graded as 'very low' to 'low'. The data were current to 31 January 2014.

Live birth: antioxidants may have increased live birth rates (OR 4.21, 95% CI 2.08 to 8.51, P< 0.0001, 4 RCTs, 277 men, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 5%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 10% and 31%. However, this result was based on only 44 live births from a total of 277 couples in four small studies.

Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may have increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.92 to 6.11, P < 0.0001, 7 RCTs, 522 men, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 6%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated at between 11% and 28%. However, there were only seven small studies in this analysis and the quality of the evidence was rated as low.

Miscarriage: only three trials reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. There was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in miscarriage rates between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment groups (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.60, P = 0.46, 3 RCTs, 247 men, I2 = 0%, very low quality evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile men with an expected miscarriage rate of 2%, use of an antioxidant would result in the risk of a miscarriage lying between 1% and 13%.

Gastrointestinal upsets: there was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in gastrointestinal upsets when antioxidants were compared to placebo or no treatment as the event rate was very low (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.50, P = 0.46, 6 RCTs, 429 men, I2 = 0%).

We were unable to draw any conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as not enough trials compared the same interventions.

Authors' conclusions
There is low quality evidence from only four small randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low quality evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage but this is uncertain as the evidence is of very low quality. Data were lacking on other adverse effects. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials are needed to clarify these results.

Antioxidants for male subfertility

Approximately 10 to 15% of couples are impacted by infertility. Recently, the pivotal role that lifestyle factors play in the development of infertility has generated a considerable amount of interest. Lifestyle factors are the modifiable habits and ways of life that can greatly influence overall health and well-being, including fertility. Many lifestyle factors such as the age at which to start a family, nutrition, weight, exercise, psychological stress, environmental and occupational exposures, and others can have substantial effects on fertility; lifestyle factors such as cigarette smoking, illicit drug use, and alcohol and caffeine consumption can negatively influence fertility while others such as preventative care may be beneficial. The present literature review encompasses multiple lifestyle factors and places infertility in context for the couple by focusing on both males and females; it aims to identify the roles that lifestyle factors play in determining reproductive status. The growing interest and amount of research in this field have made it evident that lifestyle factors have a significant impact on fertility.

/pdf/lifestyle-factors-and-reproductive-health-taking-control-of-ob45s39pgz.pdf

Lifestyle factors and reproductive health: taking control of your fertility

This is the fourth American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)-sponsored consensus guidelines for management of cervical cancer screening abnormalities, after the original consensus conferences in 20011 and subsequent updates in 20062 and 2012.3 An interim guidance publication providing management recommendations for primary HPV screening was released in 2015.4 This document updates and replaces all previous guidance. The key difference between 2019 guidelines and previous versions is the change from primarily test results–based algorithms (e.g., “Colposcopy is recommended for patients with HPV-positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US], low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [LSIL],” etc.) to primarily “risk-based” guidelines (e.g., “Colposcopy is recommended for any combination of history and current test results yielding a 4.0% or greater probability of finding CIN 3+,” etc.). See Box 1 for essential changes. Tables of risk estimates for possible combinations of current screening test results and screening history (including unknown history) have been generated from a prospective longitudinal cohort of more than 1.5 million patients followed for more than a decade at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). All KPNC estimates of risk underlying guideline decisions are detailed in the accompanying article by Egemen et al.5 The applicability of these risk estimates to other United States regions and populations has been confirmed in other data sets from screening programs and clinical trials.6 Many patients, especially those with minor abnormalities, can be managed by identifying their risk level using Tables 1A to 5B in Egemen et al5 and linking it to a recommended clinical action (return to routine screening, surveillance with repeat testing at 1- or 3-year intervals, colposcopy, or treatment). To facilitate use of these tables, the same information will be accessible via smartphone app (for purchase) and web (no cost) through http://www.asccp.org. Decision aids may facilitate use of the tables.7 Common abnormalities are managed using risk estimates outlined in Section E, and rare abnormalities are managed via the result-specific consensus recommendations outlined in Sections G-K.


Box 1. Essential Changes From Prior Management Guidelines


1) Recommendations are based on risk, not results.




Recommendations of colposcopy, treatment, or surveillance will be based on a patient's risk of CIN 3+ determined by a combination of current results and history (including unknown history). The same current test results may yield different management recommendations depending on the history of recent past test results.


2) Colposcopy can be deferred for certain patients.




Repeat HPV testing or cotesting at 1 year is recommended for patients with minor screening abnormalities indicating HPV infection with low risk of underlying CIN 3+ (e.g., low-grade cytologic abnormalities after a documented negative screening HPV test or cotest).


At the 1-year follow-up test, referral to colposcopy is recommended if results remain abnormal.


3) Guidance for expedited treatment is expanded (i.e., treatment without colposcopic biopsy).




Expedited treatment was an option for patients with HSIL cytology in the 2012 guidelines; this guidance is now better defined.


For nonpregnant patients 25 years or older, expedited treatment, defined as treatment without preceding colposcopic biopsy demonstrating CIN 2+, is preferred when the immediate risk of CIN 3+ is ≥60%, and is acceptable for those with risks between 25% and 60%. Expedited treatment is preferred for nonpregnant patients 25 years or older with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cytology and concurrent positive testing for HPV genotype 16 (HPV 16) (i.e., HPV 16–positive HSIL cytology) and never or rarely screened patients with HPV-positive HSIL regardless of HPV genotype.


Shared decision-making should be used when considering expedited treatment, especially for patients with concerns about the potential impact of treatment on pregnancy outcomes.


4) Excisional treatment is preferred to ablative treatment for histologic HSIL (CIN 2 or CIN 3) in the United States. Excision is recommended for adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS).


5) Observation is preferred to treatment for CIN 1.




Treatment remains acceptable for patients with repeat diagnoses of CIN 1 persisting 2 years or more.


6) Histopathology reports based on Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST)/World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for reporting histologic HSIL should include CIN 2 or CIN 3 qualifiers, i.e., HSIL(CIN 2) and HSIL (CIN 3).


7) All positive HPV tests, regardless of genotype, should have additional reflex triage testing performed from the same laboratory specimen (e.g., reflex cytology).




Additional testing from the same laboratory specimen is recommended because the findings may inform colposcopy practice. For example, those with HSIL cytology and concurrent positive testing for HPV genotype 16 qualify for expedited treatment.


HPV 16 or 18 infections have the highest risk for CIN 3 and occult cancer, so additional evaluation (e.g., colposcopy with biopsy) is necessary even when cytology results are negative.


If HPV 16 and 18 testing is positive, and additional laboratory testing of the same sample is not feasible, the patient should proceed directly to colposcopy.


8) Continued surveillance with HPV testing or cotesting at 3-year intervals for at least 25 years is recommended after treatment of histologic HSIL, CIN 2, CIN 3, or AIS. Continued surveillance at 3-year intervals beyond 25 years is acceptable for as long as the patient's life expectancy and ability to be screened are not significantly compromised by serious health issues.




The 2012 guidelines recommended return to 5-year screening intervals and did not specify when screening should cease. New evidence indicates that risk remains elevated for at least 25 years, with no evidence that treated patients ever return to risk levels compatible with 5-year intervals.


Surveillance with cytology alone is acceptable only if testing with HPV or cotesting is not feasible. Cytology is less sensitive than HPV testing for detection of precancer and is therefore recommended more often. Cytology is recommended at 6-month intervals when HPV testing or cotesting is recommended annually. Cytology is recommended annually when 3-year intervals are recommended for HPV or cotesting.


9) Human papilloma virus assays that are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for screening should be used for management according to their regulatory approval in the United States. (Note: all HPV testing in this document refers to testing for high-risk HPV types only).




For all management indications, HPV mRNA and HPV DNA tests without FDA approval for primary screening alone should only be used as a cotest with cytology, unless sufficient, exceptionally rigorous data are available to support primary HPV testing in management.




The minimum amount of data required to generate a recommendation will include the patient's age and current test results, as we recognize that previous screening history is often not known. Increased precision of management guidance will be possible if information is available on test results within the past 5 years and previous precancer treatment within the past 25 years.3 Current results and past history are designed to generate the patient's risk estimate from data tables.5 Risk estimates are available for the following clinical situations: abnormal screening test results with unknown history, abnormal screening test results with medical record documentation of a preceding negative HPV test or cotest, surveillance of previous abnormal screening test results that did not require immediate colposcopic referral (e.g., follow-up after an HPV-positive cytology negative result), colposcopy/biopsy results, and follow-up surveillance tests after colposcopy or after treatment for, or resolution of, high-grade abnormalities (e.g., CIN 2+).

The recognition that persistent HPV infection is necessary for developing precancer and cancer (defined as CIN 3+, which includes diagnoses of CIN 3, AIS, and cancer) underlies the 2019 guideline update. Prospective longitudinal data indicate that when a new abnormal screening test result follows a negative HPV test or cotest within the past 5 years, the estimated risk of CIN 3+ is reduced by approximately 50%.8 A negative cytology result within 3 years of a new abnormal screening test, however, does not confer a similar reduction in risk.9 The 2019 guidelines also recognize that a colposcopic examination performed according to accepted standards (e.g., using the KPNC colposcopy protocol or the ASCCP Colposcopy Standards10) confirming low-grade or normal histology reduces a patient's estimated risk of having precancer/cancer in the next 2 years.11 This allows patients with an HPV-positive ASC-US or LSIL result at their 1-year follow-up visit after a colposcopy confirming normal- or low-grade histology to return for repeat HPV or cotesting in 1 more year, rather than immediately return to colposcopy. Thus, incorporating a patient's history of previous HPV tests and colposcopy/biopsy results will permit detection and treatment of CIN 3+ while avoiding unnecessary interventions for patients with new HPV infections who are at lower risk.12

2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors.

Background It has been suggested that body mass index (BMI), especially obesity, is associated with subfertility in men. Semen parameters are central to male fertility and reproductive hormones also play a role in spermatogenesis. This review aimed to investigate the association of BMI with semen parameters and reproductive hormones in men of reproductive age. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases and references from relevant articles were searched in January and February 2009. Outcomes included for semen parameters were sperm concentration, total sperm count, semen volume, motility and morphology. Reproductive hormones included were testosterone, free testosterone, estradiol, FSH, LH, inhibin B and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG). A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate sperm concentration and total sperm count. Results In total, 31 studies were included. Five studies were suitable for pooling and the meta-analysis found no evidence for a relationship between BMI and sperm concentration or total sperm count. Overall review of all studies similarly revealed little evidence for a relationship with semen parameters and increased BMI. There was strong evidence of a negative relationship for testosterone, SHBG and free testosterone with increased BMI. Conclusions This systematic review with meta-analysis has not found evidence of an association between increased BMI and semen parameters. The main limitation of this review is that data from most studies could not be aggregated for meta-analysis. Population-based studies with larger sample sizes and longitudinal studies are required.

/pdf/the-impact-of-body-mass-index-on-semen-parameters-and-3wakkvtz8x.pdf

The impact of body mass index on semen parameters and reproductive hormones in human males: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND
Between 30% to 80% of male subfertility cases are considered to be due to the damaging effects of oxidative stress on sperm. Oral supplementation with antioxidants may improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative stress.  


OBJECTIVES
This Cochrane review aimed to evaluate the effect of oral supplementation with antioxidants for male partners of couples undergoing assisted reproduction techniques (ART).


SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED databases (from their inception until Febuary 2010), trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, reference lists and we asked experts in the field.


SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing any type or dose of antioxidant supplement (single or combined) taken by the male partner of a couple seeking fertility assistance with placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant. The outcomes were live birth, pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, sperm DNA damage, sperm motility, sperm concentration and adverse effects.


DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality, and extracted data.  


MAIN RESULTS
We included 34 trials with 2876 couples in total. Live birth: three trials reported live birth. Men taking oral antioxidants had an associated statistically significant increase in live birth rate (pooled odds ratio (OR) 4.85, 95% CI 1.92 to 12.24; P = 0.0008, I(2) = 0%) when compared with the men taking the control. This result was based on 20 live births from a total of 214 couples in only three studies.Pregnancy rate: there were 96 pregnancies in 15 trials including 964 couples. Antioxidant use was associated with a statistically significant increased pregnancy rate compared to control (pooled OR 4.18, 95% CI 2.65 to 6.59; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 0%).Side effects: no studies reported evidence of harmful side effects of the antioxidant therapy used.


AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence suggests that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve the outcomes of live birth and pregnancy rate for subfertile couples undergoing ART cycles. Further head to head comparisons are necessary to identify the superiority of one antioxidant over another.

Antioxidants for male subfertility (Review)

Review question: Do supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women (standard treatment includes folic acid < 1 mg).
Background: many subfertile women undergoing fertility treatment also take dietary supplements in the hope of improving their fertility. This can be a very stressful time for women and their partners. It is important that these couples be given high quality evidence that will allow them to make informed decisions on whether taking a supplemental antioxidant when undergoing fertility treatment will improve their chances or cause any adverse effects; this is especially important as most antioxidant supplements are uncontrolled by regulation. This review aimed to assess whether supplements with oral antioxidants increase a subfertile woman's chances of becoming pregnant and having a baby.
Search date: The evidence is current to April 2013.
Study characteristics: The review included 28 randomised controlled trials that compared antioxidants with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment, or with another antioxidant in a total of 3548 women.
Funding sources: Funding sources were reported by only six of the 28 included trials.
Key results: Antioxidants were not found to be effective for increasing rates of live birth or clinical pregnancy. Based on these results, we would expect that out of 100 subfertile women not taking antioxidants, 23 would become pregnant, compared with between 22 and 36 per 100 who would become pregnant if taking antioxidants to improve their chances of becoming pregnant. Antioxidants did not appear to be associated with the adverse events of miscarriage or multiple or ectopic pregnancy.
Quality of the evidence: The quality of the evidence in this review for live birth, clinical pregnancy and adverse effects was rated 'very low' to 'low'.

Marian Showell

Papers

Antioxidants for male subfertility

The impact of body mass index on semen parameters and reproductive hormones in human males: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Antioxidants for male subfertility (Review)

Antioxidants for female subfertility

Obesity and endometrial hyperplasia and cancer in premenopausal women: A systematic review