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MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED databases (from inception until January 2014); trial registers; sources of unpublished literature and reference lists.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

Study question What is the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature? Summary answer The guideline development group formulated 77 recommendations answering 18 key questions on investigations and treatments for RPL, and on how care should be organized. What is known already A previous guideline for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage was published in 2006 and is in need of an update. Study design size duration The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 31 March 2017 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes. Participants/materials setting methods Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. Main results and the role of chance The guideline provides 38 recommendations on risk factors, prevention and investigations in couples with RPL, and 39 recommendations on treatments. These include 60 evidence-based recommendations - of which 31 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional - and 17 good practice points. The evidence supporting investigations and treatment of couples with RPL is limited and of moderate quality. Of the evidence-based recommendations, only 10 (16.3%) were supported by moderate quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (35 recommendations: 57.4%), or very low quality evidence (16 recommendations: 26.2%). There were no recommendations based on high quality evidence. Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL. Limitations reasons for caution Several investigations and treatments are offered to couples with RPL, but most of them are not well studied. For most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. Wider implications of the findings The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. One of the most important consequences of the limited evidence is the absence of evidence for a definition of RPL. Study funding/competing interests The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. J.E. reports position funding from CARE Fertility. S.L. reports position funding from SpermComet Ltd. S.M. reports research grants, consulting and speaker's fees from GSK, BMS/Pfizer, Sanquin, Aspen, Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. S.Q. reports speaker's fees from Ferring. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

/pdf/eshre-guideline-recurrent-pregnancy-loss-2t28di62x0.pdf

ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss.

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'.

Antioxidants for female subfertility

/pdf/antykhsydnh-bry-khmbrwry-mrdn-4fqolcqajd.pdf

آنتیاکسیدانها برای کمباروری مردان

Background Subfertile women are highly motivated to try different adjunctive therapies to have a baby, and the widespread perception is that dietary supplements such as myo-inositol (MI) and D-chiro-insoitol (DCI) are associated with only benefit, and not with harm. Many fertility clinicians currently prescribe MI for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) as pre-treatment to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or for ovulation induction; however no high-quality evidence is available to support this practice. This review assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of inositol in subfertile women with a diagnosis of PCOS. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation of inositol for reproductive outcomes among subfertile women with PCOS who are trying to conceive. Search methods We searched the following databases (to July 2018): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and AMED. We also checked reference lists and searched the clinical trials registries. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose, or combination of oral inositol versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, or with a fertility agent, or with another type of inositol, among subfertile women with PCOS. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live birth and adverse effects; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and ovulation rates. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model, and we calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by applying GRADE criteria. Main results We included 13 trials involving 1472 subfertile women with PCOS who were receiving myo-inositol as pre-treatment to IVF (11 trials), or during ovulation induction (two trials). These studies compared MI versus placebo, no treatment/standard, melatonin, metformin, clomiphene citrate, or DCI. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' quality. The main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, inconsistency, and lack of reporting of clinically relevant outcomes such as live birth and adverse events.We are uncertain whether MI improves live birth rates when compared to standard treatment among women undergoing IVF (OR 2.42, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.83; P = 0.14; 2 RCTs; 84 women; I² = 0%). Very low-quality evidence suggests that for subfertile women with PCOS undergoing pre-treatment to IVF who have an expected live birth rate of 12%, the rate among women using MI would be between 9% and 51%.We are uncertain whether MI may be associated with a decrease in miscarriage rate when compared to standard treatment (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.86; P = 0.02; 4 RCTs; 535 women; I² = 66%; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS with an expected miscarriage rate of 9% who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, the rate among women using MI would be between 2% and 8%; however this meta-analysis is based primarily on one study, which reported an unusually high miscarriage rate in the control group, and this has resulted in very high heterogeneity. When we removed this trial from the sensitivity analysis, we no longer saw the effect, and we noted no conclusive differences between MI and standard treatment.Low-quality evidence suggests that MI may be associated with little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rates when compared with standard treatment (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.71; P = 0.89; 2 RCTs; 425 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 18%, the rate among women using inositol would be between 12% and 27%.We are uncertain whether MI may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate when compared to standard treatment (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.85; P = 0.22; 4 RCTs; 535 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 26%, the rate among women using MI would be between 24% and 40%. Ovulation rates were not reported for this comparison.Other comparisons included only one trial in each, so for the comparisons MI versus antioxidant, MI versus an insulin-sensitising agent, MI versus an ovulation induction agent, and MI versus another DCI, meta-analysis was not possible.No pooled evidence was available for women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction, as only single trials performed comparison of the insulin-sensitising agent and the ovulation induction agent. Authors' conclusions In light of available evidence of very low quality, we are uncertain whether MI improves live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate in subfertile women with PCOS undergoing IVF pre-treatment taking MI compared to standard treatment. We are also uncertain whether MI decreases miscarriage rates or multiple pregnancy rates for these same women taking MI compared to standard treatment. No pooled evidence is available for use of MI versus placebo, another antioxidant, insulin-sensitising agents, ovulation induction agents, or another type of inositol for women with PCOS undergoing pre-treatment to IVF. No pooled evidence is available for use of MI in women undergoing ovulation induction.

Rebecca Mackenzie-Proctor

Papers

Antioxidants for male subfertility

Antioxidants for female subfertility

آنتیاکسیدانها برای کمباروری مردان

Inositol for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Antioxidants in fertility: impact on male and female reproductive outcomes.