Literature DB >> 27927843

Risk of childhood mortality in family members of men with poor semen quality.

Heidi A Hanson1,2, Erik N Mayer3, Ross E Anderson3, Kenneth I Aston3,4,5, Douglas T Carrell3,5, Justin Berger2, William T Lowrance3, Ken R Smith2,6, James M Hotaling3,4.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What is the familial childhood mortality in first-degree (FDR) and second-degree relatives (SDR) of patients undergoing semen analysis (SA)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The relationship between infertility and congenital malformations (CM) in offspring is complex, with an increased risk of death due to CM in FDR, but not SDR, of men with lower semen parameters. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Semen quality is an established predictor of men's somatic health. We can gain a better understanding of possible genetic or environmental determinants of the infertility phenotype by exploring familial aggregation of childhood mortality in relatives of men with poor semen quality. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective cohort study from the Subfertility, Health and Assisted Reproduction study (cohort compiled 1996-2011) linked with patient/familial information from the Utah Population Database (UPDB). Index cases included a clinic-referred sample of 12 889 men who underwent SA and had adequate familial and follow-up data in the UPDB. Parameters of semen quality included: semen concentration, sperm count, motility, total motile count, sperm head morphology, sperm tail morphology and vitality. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: SA data were collected from two tertiary medical center andrology laboratories that have captured ~90% of all SA performed in Utah since 2004. Age- and sex-matched fertile controls were selected to create the comparison group for determining risk of childhood death (to age 20 years) in family members. A total of 79 750 siblings and 160 016 aunts/uncles were used to investigate the familial aggregation of childhood mortality. The main outcome was childhood mortality in FDR and SDR of men with SA and their matched controls. All-cause and cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models were used to test the association between semen quality and childhood mortality in family members. Cause-specific models were considered for cancer and CM. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In the cohort of men with SA, there were 406 (1.0%) deaths in FDR and 772 (1.1%) deaths in SDR due to any cause. There was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause childhood mortality between the relatives of men with SA and the fertile control group [hazard ratio (HR)Female = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.88, 1.32; HRMale = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.75, 1.04]. We found no association between semen quality and risk for childhood cancer mortality in FDR or SDR (HRFDR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.62, 1.54; HRSDR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.83, 1.50). The FDR of men with SA and fertile controls were followed on average for 19.71 and 19.73 years, respectively. During this period of follow-up, FDR of men with SA had an unadjusted 40% relative risk of increased CM-related death. After stratifying by semen parameters and adjusting for birth year, we found FDR of men with worse semen quality, and notably azoospermic men (HR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.24,5.84), were at higher risk of CM-related death. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: A large proportion of men with SA in the study had normal semen parameters. It is important to note that these men themselves may not be subfertile, but they were subfertile at the couple level (i.e. the female partner may be infertile). In addition, care is needed when interpreting our results, as we do not have semen measures on our sample of fertile men. Second, we were unable to include potential confounders such as medical comorbidities, smoking status, or environmental exposures. Third, men with SA were seen at the University of Utah or Intermountain Health Care clinics for a fertility evaluation thereby suggesting a more select population. Fourth, we chose to categorize morphology into equally distributed quartiles as a response to the fact that the World Health Organization threshold for normal motility changed multiple times during our study period. Lastly, we do not know the proportion of female partners with diagnosed infertility. We chose not to subcategorize each infertile male by infertile diagnosis because our goal was to understand how semen parameters influenced familial childhood mortality. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: We are not the first study to show a relationship between fertility and CMs. Children conceived through ART may be at higher risk of birth defects, however it is not known if the relationship is causal or if there is some underlying factor linking infertility and birth outcomes. This study provides further evidence that the increased risk of congenital birth defects may not be due to the ART, but rather genetic or environmental factors that link the two outcomes. We encourage further research in order to confirm a relationship between semen quality and increased risk for CM. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health - National Institute of Aging [Grant numbers 1R21AG036938-01, 2R01 AG022095 and 1K12HD085852-01]. Authors have no competing interests to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Utah Population Database; childhood mortality; congenital malformations; familial aggregation; familial risk; infertility; semen; testicular dysgenesis syndrome

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27927843      PMCID: PMC5165078          DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew289

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  38 in total

1.  Sample-size calculations for the Cox proportional hazards regression model with nonbinary covariates.

Authors:  F Y Hsieh; P W Lavori
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2000-12

Review 2.  The "omics" of human male infertility: integrating big data in a systems biology approach.

Authors:  D T Carrell; K I Aston; R Oliva; B R Emery; C J De Jonge
Journal:  Cell Tissue Res       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 5.249

3.  Infertility as a proxy of general male health: results of a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Eugenio Ventimiglia; Paolo Capogrosso; Luca Boeri; Alessandro Serino; Michele Colicchia; Silvia Ippolito; Roberta Scano; Enrico Papaleo; Rocco Damiano; Francesco Montorsi; Andrea Salonia
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 4.  What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments.

Authors:  T V Perneger
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-04-18

5.  Association between assisted reproductive technology and cardiac alteration at age 5 years.

Authors:  Hong Liu; Yuan Zhang; Hai-Tao Gu; Qiao-Ling Feng; Jia-Yin Liu; Jie Zhou; Fei Yan
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 16.193

Review 6.  Testicular dysgenesis syndrome and the development and occurrence of male reproductive disorders.

Authors:  H E Virtanen; E Rajpert-De Meyts; K M Main; N E Skakkebaek; J Toppari
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2005-09-01       Impact factor: 4.219

Review 7.  Semen quality and male reproductive health: the controversy about human sperm concentration decline.

Authors:  P Jouannet; C Wang; F Eustache; T Kold-Jensen; J Auger
Journal:  APMIS       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.205

8.  A cohort study of cancer risk in relation to family histories of cancer in the Utah population database.

Authors:  Richard A Kerber; Elizabeth O'Brien
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Relationship between semen production and medical comorbidity.

Authors:  Michael L Eisenberg; Shufeng Li; Barry Behr; Renee Reijo Pera; Mark R Cullen
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 7.329

10.  Subfertility increases risk of testicular cancer: evidence from population-based semen samples.

Authors:  Heidi A Hanson; Ross E Anderson; Kenneth I Aston; Douglas T Carrell; Ken R Smith; James M Hotaling
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 7.329

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Harnessing the full potential of reproductive genetics and epigenetics for male infertility in the era of "big data".

Authors:  Darshan P Patel; Tim G Jenkins; Kenneth I Aston; Jingtao Guo; Alexander W Pastuszak; Heidi A Hanson; James M Hotaling
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 2.  The seminal microbiome in health and disease.

Authors:  Jason M Franasiak; Reet Mändar; Signe Altmäe
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss and sperm DNA fragmentation, have we found the missing link?

Authors:  Avi Harlev
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-09

4.  Effects of Highly Polluted Environment on Sperm Telomere Length: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Cecilia Vecoli; Luigi Montano; Andrea Borghini; Tiziana Notari; Antonino Guglielmino; Antonella Mercuri; Stefano Turchi; Maria Grazia Andreassi
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 5.  Limitations and opportunities in male fertility databases.

Authors:  Brent M Hanson; James M Hotaling
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-07

Review 6.  What advances may the future bring to the diagnosis, treatment, and care of male sexual and reproductive health?

Authors:  Christopher L R Barratt; Christina Wang; Elisabetta Baldi; Igor Toskin; James Kiarie; Dolores J Lamb
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 7.490

7.  Lower total motile count is associated with smaller historic intergenerational family size: a pedigree analysis from the Utah Population Database.

Authors:  Darshan P Patel; Huong T Meeks; Heidi A Hanson; Alexander W Pastuszak; James M Hotaling; Ken R Smith
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 3.412

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.