Sperm DNA damage is common amongst infertile men and may adversely impact natural reproduction, IUI-assisted reproduction and to a lesser degree IVF pregnancy. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of sperm DNA damage on the risk of spontaneous pregnancy loss after IVF and ICSI. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on sperm DNA damage and pregnancy loss after an IVF and/or ICSI pregnancy. Two by two tables were constructed and odds ratios (ORs) were derived from 11 estimates of pregnancy loss (five IVF and six ICSI studies from seven reports). These 11 studies involved 1549 cycles of treatment (808 IVF and 741 ICSI cycles) with 640 pregnancies (345 IVF and 295 ICSI) and 122 pregnancy losses. The combined OR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.52, 4.04, P < 0.0001) indicates that sperm DNA damage is predictive of pregnancy loss after IVF and ICSI. In conclusion, sperm DNA damage is associated with a significantly increased risk of pregnancy loss after IVF and ICSI. These data provide a clinical indication for the evaluation of sperm DNA damage prior to IVF or ICSI and a rationale for further investigating the association between sperm DNA damage and pregnancy loss.

Agarwal A, et al. World J Mens Health. 2019 Sep;37(3):296-312. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.190055

We herein summarise the evidence concerning the impact of sperm DNA fragmentation in various clinical infertility scenarios and the advances on sperm DNA fragmentation tests. The collected evidence was used to formulate 41 recommendations. Of these, 13 recommendations concern technical aspects of sperm DNA fragmentation testing, including pre‐analytical information, clinical thresholds and interpretation of results. The remaining 28 recommendations relate to indications for sperm DNA fragmentation testing and clinical management. Clinical scenarios like varicocele, unexplained infertility, idiopathic infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection, fertility counselling for men with infertility risk factors and sperm cryopreservation have been contemplated. The bulk evidence supporting the recommendations has increased in recent years, but it is still of moderate to low quality. This practice guideline provides clinicians with advice on best practices in sperm DNA fragmentation testing. Also, recommendations are provided on possible management strategies to overcome infertility related to sperm DNA fragmentation, based on the best available evidence. Lastly, we identified gaps in knowledge and opportunities for research and elaborated a list of recommendations to stimulate further investigation concerning sperm DNA fragmentation testing and management of sperm DNA fragmentation‐related infertility conditions.

Semen analysis is the cornerstone of male fertility evaluation with WHO guidelines providing the basis for procedural standardization and reference values worldwide. The first WHO manual was published in 1980, and five editions have been subsequently released over the last four decades. The 6th Edition was published in July 2021. In this review, we identify the key changes of this 6th Edition. Additionally, we evaluate the utility of this 6th Edition in clinical practice using SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This new Edition has made the analysis of basic semen parameters more robust, taking into account the criticisms and grey areas of the previous editions. The tests assessing sperm DNA fragmentation and seminal oxidative stress are well-described. The main novelty is that this latest edition abandons the notion of reference thresholds, suggesting instead to replace them with “decision limits”. While this seems attractive, no decision limits are proposed for either basic semen parameters, or for extended or advanced parameters. This critical review of the 6th Edition of the WHO laboratory manual combined with a SWOT analysis summarizes the changes and novelties present in this new Edition and provides an in-depth analysis that could help its global use in the coming years.

Varicocele is a common problem in reproductive medicine practice. A varicocele is identified in 15% of healthy men and up to 35% of men with primary infertility. The exact pathophysiology of varicoceles is not very well understood, especially regarding its effect on male infertility. We have conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the epidemiology of varicocele in the general population and in men presenting with infertility. In this article, we have identified some of the factors that can influence the epidemiological aspects of varicoceles. We also recognize that varicocele epidemiology remains incompletely understood, and there is a need for well-designed, large-scale studies to fully define the epidemiological aspects of this condition.