Sperm selection with hyaluronic acid improved live birth outcomes among older couples and was connected to sperm DNA quality, potentially affecting all treatment outcomes.
DNA quality
IVF/ICSI outcome
clinical trial
defective sperm
hyaluronic acid
mechanisms
sperm DNA
sperm function
sperm quality
sperm selection
Journal
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1460-2350
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8701199
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 05 2022
30 05 2022
Historique:
received:
17
12
2021
revised:
13
02
2022
pubmed:
24
4
2022
medline:
3
6
2022
entrez:
23
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
What effects did treatment using hyaluronic acid (HA) binding/selection prior to ICSI have on clinical outcomes in the Hyaluronic Acid Binding sperm Selection (HABSelect) clinical trial? Older women randomized to the trial's experimental arm (selection of sperm bound to immobilized (solid-state) HA) had the same live birth rates as younger women, most likely a result of better avoidance of sperm with damaged DNA. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of HA-based sperm selection prior to ICSI, including HABSelect, have consistently reported reductions in the numbers of miscarriages among couples randomized to the intervention, suggesting a pathological sperm-mediated factor mitigated by prior HA-binding/selection. The mechanism of that protection is unknown. The original HABSelect Phase 3 RCT ran from 2014 to 2017 and included 2752 couples from whom sperm samples used in control (ICSI) and intervention (Physiological IntraCytoplasmic Sperm Injection; PICSI) arms of the trial were stored frozen for later assessment of DNA quality (DNAq). The trial overlapped with its mechanistic arm, running from 2016 to 2018. As miscarriage reduction was a significant secondary outcome of the trial, samples (n = 1247) selected for the mechanistic analysis were deliberately enriched for miscarriage outcomes (n = 92 or 7.4%) from a total of 154 miscarriages (5.6%) among all (n = 2752) couples randomized by stratified random sampling. Values from fresh semen samples for sperm concentration (mml), percentage forward progressive motility and percentage HA-binding score (HBS) were obtained before being processed by differential density gradient centrifugation or (rarely) by swim-up on the day of treatment. Surplus sperm pellets were recovered, aliquoted and cryopreserved for later analysis of DNAq using slide-based Comet, TUNEL, acridine orange (AO) and the sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) assays. Following their classification into normal and abnormal sample subcategories based on reference values for sperm concentration and motility, relationships with HBS and DNAq were examined by Spearman correlation, Student's t-tests, Mann Whitney U tests, and logistic regression (univariable and multivariable). Parsimonious selection enabled the development of models for exploring and explaining data trends. Potential differences in future cumulative pregnancy rates relating to embryo quality were also explored. Results from the 1247 sperm samples assayed for HBS and/or DNAq, generated data that were considered in relation to standard physiological measures of (sperm) vitality and to treatment outcomes. All measures of HBS and DNAq discriminated normal from abnormal sperm samples (P < 0.001). SCD correlated negatively with the Comet (r = -0.165; P < 0.001) and TUNEL assays (r = -0.200; P < 0.001). HBS correlated negatively with AO (r = -0.211; P < 0.001), Comet (r = -0.127; P < 0.001) and TUNEL (r = -0.214; P < 0.001) and positively with SCD (r = 0.255; P < 0.001). A model for predicting live birth (and miscarriage) rates included treatment allocation (odds ratio: OR 2.167, 95% CI 1.084-4.464, P = 0.031), female age (OR 0.301, 95% CI 0.133-0.761, P = 0.013, per decade) and the AO assay (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1. 02.761, P = 0.073, per 10 points rise). A model predicting the expected rate of biochemical pregnancy included male age (OR 0.464, 95% CI 0.314-0.674, P < 0.001, per decade) and the SCD assay (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.007-1.075, P = 0.018, per 10 point rise). A model for conversion from biochemical to clinical pregnancy did not retain any significant patient or assay variables. A model for post-injection fertilization rates included treatment allocation (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.91, P < 0.001) and the Comet assay (OR 0.950, 95% CI 0.91-1.00, P = 0.041). HABSelect was a prospective RCT and the mechanistic study group was drawn from its recruitment cohort for retrospective analysis, without the full benefit of randomization. The clinical and mechanistic aspects of the study were mutually exclusive in that measures of DNAq were obtained from residual samples and not from HA-selected versus unselected sperm. Models for fitting mechanistic with baseline and other clinical data were developed to compensate for variable DNAq data quality. HABSelect used a solid-state version of PICSI and we did not assess the efficacy of any liquid-state alternatives. PICSI reduced fertilization rates and did not improve the outlook for cumulative pregnancy rates. Notwithstanding the interventional effect on fertilization rates and possibly blastocyst formation (neither of which influenced pregnancy rates), poor sperm DNAq, reflected by lower HBS, probably contributed to the depression of all gestational outcomes including live births, in the HABSelect trial. The interventional avoidance of defective sperm is the best explanation for the equalization in live birth rates among older couples randomized to the trial's PICSI arm. As patients going forward for assisted conception cycles globally in future are likely to be dominated by an older demographic, HA-based selection of sperm for ICSI could be considered as part of their treatment plan. The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) EME (Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation)-11-14-34. National Research Ethics Service approval 11/06/2013: 13/YH/0162. S.L. is CEO of ExamenLab Ltd (company number NI605309). ISRCTN99214271.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35459947
pii: 6572689
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deac058
pmc: PMC9156852
doi:
Substances chimiques
Chromatin
0
Hyaluronic Acid
9004-61-9
DNA
9007-49-2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1106-1125Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_13092
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Références
Fertil Steril. 2010 May 1;93(7):2255-61
pubmed: 19591984
J Androl. 2011 May-Jun;32(3):324-32
pubmed: 20966423
Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 Mar;34(3):298-311
pubmed: 28017538
Hum Reprod. 2007 Jul;22(7):1871-7
pubmed: 17478459
Fertil Steril. 2014 Oct;102(4):998-1005.e8
pubmed: 25190048
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 26;2:CD000360
pubmed: 26915339
Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2011 Feb;57(1-2):78-85
pubmed: 21208147
Reprod Biomed Online. 2009 Apr;18(4):479-85
pubmed: 19400988
Transl Androl Urol. 2017 Sep;6(Suppl 4):S621-S623
pubmed: 29082980
Int J Androl. 2011 Oct;34(5 Pt 2):e306-18
pubmed: 21418239
Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):416-422
pubmed: 30712901
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 30;7:CD010461
pubmed: 31425620
Hum Reprod Update. 2006 Jul-Aug;12(4):417-35
pubmed: 16581810
Asian J Androl. 2015 Jul-Aug;17(4):681-5
pubmed: 25814156
Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2014 Dec;60(6):348-54
pubmed: 25119820
Leuk Lymphoma. 1994 Aug;14(5-6):363-74
pubmed: 7529076
Andrologia. 2010 Oct;42(5):291-6
pubmed: 20860626
Hum Reprod. 1992 Mar;7(3):391-8
pubmed: 1375234
Arch Androl. 2001 Mar-Apr;46(2):99-104
pubmed: 11297072
Fertil Steril. 1984 Jul;42(1):87-91
pubmed: 6724015
Hum Reprod Update. 2010 May-Jun;16(3):231-45
pubmed: 19934213
Mutagenesis. 1999 Sep;14(5):505-12
pubmed: 10473655
Hum Reprod. 2000 Jul;15(7):1552-61
pubmed: 10875865
Aging Male. 2020 Dec;23(5):822-829
pubmed: 30964371
J Androl. 2010 Nov-Dec;31(6):566-72
pubmed: 20133967
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010 Jan;27(1):13-6
pubmed: 20041286
Hum Reprod. 1994 Dec;9(12):2313-7
pubmed: 7714151
Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2013 Mar;40(1):23-8
pubmed: 23614112
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019 Feb;36(2):315-324
pubmed: 30421343
Fertil Steril. 2010 Mar 1;93(4):1027-36
pubmed: 20080235
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jun;18(3):260-7
pubmed: 16735824
Hum Reprod. 2020 Mar 27;35(3):529-544
pubmed: 32108237
Mol Hum Reprod. 2017 Dec 1;23(12):803-816
pubmed: 29126140
Theriogenology. 2009 Sep 15;72(5):624-35
pubmed: 19604569
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 19;8(9):e74812
pubmed: 24069351
Reprod Biomed Online. 2003 Oct-Nov;7(4):462-8
pubmed: 14656409
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 28;(10):CD010461
pubmed: 25348679
Reproduction. 2016 Jul;152(1):57-67
pubmed: 27071918
Transl Androl Urol. 2016 Dec;5(6):935-950
pubmed: 28078226
Basic Clin Androl. 2016 Dec 5;26:15
pubmed: 27980786
J Androl. 2006 Jan-Feb;27(1):53-9
pubmed: 16400078
Zygote. 2015 Aug;23(4):556-62
pubmed: 24988915
Genes (Basel). 2019 Jan 31;10(2):
pubmed: 30708937
Andrologia. 2018 Mar;50(2):
pubmed: 28699197
Andrology. 2021 Jan;9(1):10-18
pubmed: 32357288
J Korean Med Sci. 2012 Dec;27(12):1569-73
pubmed: 23255860
Hum Reprod. 2020 Oct 1;35(10):2188-2196
pubmed: 32976601
Reprod Sci. 2012 Nov;19(11):1163-8
pubmed: 23064692
Andrology. 2021 May;9(3):873-877
pubmed: 33523582
Hum Reprod. 2014 May;29(5):904-17
pubmed: 24619433
Reprod Biomed Online. 2015 Feb;30(2):120-7
pubmed: 25530036
Andrology. 2014 Jan;2(1):83-7
pubmed: 24255006
Fertil Steril. 2010 Dec;94(7):2626-30
pubmed: 20542505
Asian J Androl. 2013 Nov;15(6):812-8
pubmed: 24121979
Asian J Androl. 2015 May 19;:
pubmed: 25994653
Fertil Steril. 1999 Sep;72(3):484-95
pubmed: 10519621
Reprod Biomed Online. 2021 May;42(5):973-982
pubmed: 33785305
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018 Jun 29;9:327
pubmed: 30008696
Reprod Biomed Online. 2009 Feb;18(2):177-83
pubmed: 19192336
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2016;81(3):244-50
pubmed: 26584304
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017 Feb 1;21(1):2-6
pubmed: 28333023
Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2008 Oct;6 Suppl 1:185-9
pubmed: 19337176
Reprod Biomed Online. 2021 Jan;42(1):175-184
pubmed: 33082108
Fertil Steril. 2003 Jun;79 Suppl 3:1616-24
pubmed: 12801568
Fertil Steril. 2016 Jan;105(1):58-64
pubmed: 26493117
Hum Fertil (Camb). 2014 Jun;17(2):80-9
pubmed: 24869677
Hum Reprod. 2016 Jul;31(7):1588-609
pubmed: 27207175
Mol Cytogenet. 2014 Jun 05;7:38
pubmed: 24976865
Biotechnol Lett. 2007 Jan;29(1):17-25
pubmed: 17091377
Hum Fertil (Camb). 2016 Dec;19(4):289-298
pubmed: 27819492
Front Vet Sci. 2021 Aug 25;8:719319
pubmed: 34746276
Asian J Androl. 2017 Jan-Feb;19(1):80-90
pubmed: 27345006
Hum Reprod. 2013 Feb;28(2):306-14
pubmed: 23203216
Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2016 Oct;62(5):309-16
pubmed: 27487396
Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19 Suppl 3:35-43
pubmed: 20034422
Andrologia. 2011 Dec;43(6):373-7
pubmed: 21919930
Physiol Rev. 2016 Jan;96(1):127-49
pubmed: 26631595
Fertil Steril. 2012 Sep;98(3):632-7
pubmed: 22749221
Mol Hum Reprod. 2004 May;10(5):365-72
pubmed: 15044602
Asian J Androl. 2011 Jan;13(1):36-42
pubmed: 20802502
Fertil Steril. 2008 Apr;89(4):892-8
pubmed: 17583699
Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Mar;32(3):286-98
pubmed: 26776822
Fertil Steril. 2008 Apr;89(4):823-31
pubmed: 17644094
J Androl. 2003 Jan-Feb;24(1):59-66
pubmed: 12514084
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013 Nov;30(11):1471-5
pubmed: 24085466
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019 Feb 20;10:94
pubmed: 30842755
Hum Reprod. 2008 May;23(5):1235-6; author reply 1236-7
pubmed: 18325886
Biol Reprod. 2009 Sep;81(3):517-24
pubmed: 19494251
BMJ Open. 2016 Oct 7;6(10):e012609
pubmed: 27855103
Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(2):598-604
pubmed: 19393999
Hum Reprod. 2012 Oct;27(10):2908-17
pubmed: 22791753