Dataset Information

Utility of Antioxidants in the Treatment of Male Infertility: Clinical Guidelines Based on a Systematic Review and Analysis of Evidence.

ABSTRACT: It is widely accepted that oxidative stress plays an important role in the pathophysiology of male infertility and that antioxidants could have a significant role in the treatment of male infertility. The main objectives of this study are: 1) to systematically review the current evidence for the utility of antioxidants in the treatment of male infertility; and 2) propose evidence-based clinical guidelines for the use of antioxidants in the treatment of male infertility. A systematic review of the available clinical evidence was performed, with articles published on Scopus being manually screened. Data extracted included the type of antioxidant used, the clinical conditions under investigation, the evaluation of semen parameters and reproductive outcomes. The adherence to the Cambridge Quality Checklist, Cochrane Risk of Bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), CONSORT guidelines and JADAD score were analyzed for each included study. Further, we provided a Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat (SWOT) analysis to analyze the current and future value of antioxidants in male infertility. Of the 1,978 articles identified, 97 articles were included in the study. Of these, 52 (53.6%) were uncontrolled (open label), 12 (12.4%) unblinded RCTs, and 33 (34.0%) blinded RCTs, whereas 44 (45.4%) articles tested individual antioxidants, 31 (32.0%) a combination of several products in variable dosages, and 22 (22.6%) registered antioxidant products. Based on the published evidence, we 1) critically examined the necessity of additional double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, and 2) proposed updated evidence-based clinical guidelines for antioxidant therapy in male infertility. The current systematic review on antioxidants and male infertility clearly shows that antioxidant supplementation improves semen parameters. In addition, it provides the indications for antioxidant treatment in specific clinical conditions, including varicocele, unexplained and idiopathic male infertility, as well as in cases of altered semen quality.

SUBMITTER: Agarwal A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7994666 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether antioxidants improve male fertility, as measured by semen parameters and DNA fragmentation at 3 months and pregnancy resulting in live birth after up to 6 months of treatment, among couples with male factor infertility.DesignMulticenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with an internal pilot study.SettingNine fertility centers in the United States from December 2015 to December 2018.Patient(s)Men (N = 174) with sperm concentration ≤15 million/mL, motility ≤40%, normal morphology ≤4%, or DNA fragmentation >25%, and female partners who were ovulatory, ≤40 years old, and had documented tubal patency.Intervention(s)Males randomly assigned to receive an antioxidant formulation (n = 85) containing 500 mg of vitamin C, 400 mg of vitamin E, 0.20 mg of selenium, 1,000 mg of l-carnitine, 20 mg of zinc, 1,000 μg of folic acid, 10 mg of lycopene daily, or placebo (n = 86). Treatment lasted for a minimum of 3 months and maximum of 6 months, and couples attempted to conceive naturally during the first 3 months and with clomiphene citrate with intrauterine insemination of the female partner in months 4 through 6.Main outcome measure(s)Primary outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included pregnancy within 6 months of treatment. For the internal pilot, the primary outcomes were semen parameters and sperm DNA fragmentation index after 3 months of treatment.Result(s)In the Males, Antioxidants, and Infertility (MOXI) study, after 3 months of treatment, the change in sperm concentration differed between the antioxidant group (median -4.0 [interquartile range-12.0, 5.7] million/mL) and placebo group (+2.4 [-9.0, 15.5] million/mL). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for changes in sperm morphology, motility, or DNA fragmentation. Among the 66 oligospermic men at randomization, sperm concentration did not differ at 3 months between the antioxidant and control groups: 8.5 (4.8, 15.0) million/mL versus 15.0 (6.0, 24.0) million/mL. Of the 75 asthenospermic men, motility did not differ at 3 months: 34% ± 16.3% versus 36.4% ± 15.8%. Among the 44 men with high DNA fragmentation, DNA fragmentation did not differ at 3 months: 29.5% (21.6%, 36.5%) versus 28.0% (20.6%, 36.4%). In the entire cohort, cumulative live birth did not differ at 6 months between the antioxidant and placebo groups: 15% versus 24%.Conclusion(s)Antioxidants do not improve semen parameters or DNA integrity among men with male factor infertility. Although limited by sample size, this study suggests that antioxidant treatment of the male partner does not improve in vivo pregnancy or live-birth rates.Clinical trial registration numberNCT02421887.

Project description:Study questionWhich genes are confidently linked to human monogenic male infertility?Summary answerOur systematic literature search and clinical validity assessment reveals that a total of 78 genes are currently confidently linked to 92 human male infertility phenotypes.What is known alreadyThe discovery of novel male infertility genes is rapidly accelerating with the availability of next-generating sequencing methods, but the quality of evidence for gene-disease relationships varies greatly. In order to improve genetic research, diagnostics and counseling, there is a need for an evidence-based overview of the currently known genes.Study design, size, durationWe performed a systematic literature search and evidence assessment for all publications in Pubmed until December 2018 covering genetic causes of male infertility and/or defective male genitourinary development.Participants/materials, setting, methodsTwo independent reviewers conducted the literature search and included papers on the monogenic causes of human male infertility and excluded papers on genetic association or risk factors, karyotype anomalies and/or copy number variations affecting multiple genes. Next, the quality and the extent of all evidence supporting selected genes was weighed by a standardized scoring method and used to determine the clinical validity of each gene-disease relationship as expressed by the following six categories: no evidence, limited, moderate, strong, definitive or unable to classify.Main results and the role of chanceFrom a total of 23 526 records, we included 1337 publications about monogenic causes of male infertility leading to a list of 521 gene-disease relationships. The clinical validity of these gene-disease relationships varied widely and ranged from definitive (n = 38) to strong (n = 22), moderate (n = 32), limited (n = 93) or no evidence (n = 160). A total of 176 gene-disease relationships could not be classified because our scoring method was not suitable.Large scale dataNot applicable.Limitations, reasons for cautionOur literature search was limited to Pubmed.Wider implications of the findingsThe comprehensive overview will aid researchers and clinicians in the field to establish gene lists for diagnostic screening using validated gene-disease criteria and help to identify gaps in our knowledge of male infertility. For future studies, the authors discuss the relevant and important international guidelines regarding research related to gene discovery and provide specific recommendations for the field of male infertility.Study funding/competing interest(s)This work was supported by a VICI grant from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (918-15-667 to J.A.V.), the Royal Society, and Wolfson Foundation (WM160091 to J.A.V.) as well as an investigator award in science from the Wellcome Trust (209451 to J.A.V.).Prospero registration numberNone.

Project description:Background: The development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (EB-CPGs) has increasing global growth; however, the certainty of impact on patients and health systems, as well as the magnitude of the impact, is not apparent. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of the application of EB-CPGs for the improvement of the quality of health care in three dimensions: structure, process and results in the patient for the management of cardiovascular disease. Methods: We followed the methods described by the Cochrane Handbook and present a descriptive analysis because of the high heterogeneity found across the included studies. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, between 1990 and June 2016. No language restrictions were applied. Only randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were selected. Three authors independently carried out the data extraction, using a modified version of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care form. Results: Of the total of 84 interventions included in the nine RCTs evaluated, three (4%) were related to health care structure, 54 (64%) to the health care delivery process and 27 (32%) to patient outcomes. Regarding the impact of using the EB-CPGs, in 55 interventions (65%), there were no significant differences between control and experimental groups. In four interventions (5%), the result favoured the control group, and the result favoured the intervention group on 25 of the interventions (30%). Conclusions: This systematic review showed that EB-CPGs could be useful to improve the process and structure of health care and, to a lesser extent, to improve the patients' outcomes. After analysing many studies, we could have one more hypothesis for further research, which could shed more light upon those undiscovered variables that might interfere with the use of the EB-CPGs. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42013003589.

Dataset Information

Utility of Antioxidants in the Treatment of Male Infertility: Clinical Guidelines Based on a Systematic Review and Analysis of Evidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets