| Literature DB >> 35459947 |
Robert West1, Arri Coomarasamy2, Lorraine Frew2, Rachel Hutton3, Jackson Kirkman-Brown2, Martin Lawlor3, Sheena Lewis3, Riitta Partanen4, Alex Payne-Dwyer4, Claudia Román-Montañana2, Forough Torabi4, Sofia Tsagdi2, David Miller4.
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION: 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? SUMMARY ANSWER: 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. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: 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. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: 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. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,Entities:
Keywords: DNA quality; IVF/ICSI outcome; clinical trial; defective sperm; hyaluronic acid; mechanisms; sperm DNA; sperm function; sperm quality; sperm selection
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35459947 PMCID: PMC9156852 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Reprod ISSN: 0268-1161 Impact factor: 6.353
Baseline statistics and other relevant parameters stratified (*) by sample classification.
| Normal | Abnormal |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male baseline and other relevant parameters | N = 399 | N = 816 | |
| Age, years (mean (SD))$ | 36.46 (5.47) | 35.89 (5.56) | 0.092 |
| BMI, kg/m2 (mean (SD))$ | 27.54 (4.53) | 26.84 (4.29) | 0.075° |
| Median sperm conc., mml (IQR)# | 42.4 (25.0, 67.4) | 7.0 (20.8, 12.6) | <0.001** |
| Mean sperm conc., mml (SD)$ | 52.5 (±37.6) | 13.1 (±25.1) | <0.001** |
| % median prog for mot (IQR)# | 51.0 (42.0, 63.0) | 33.0 (20.8, 50.0) | <0.001** |
| % mean prog for mot (SD)$ | 52.5 (±13.0) | 35.5 (±19.8) | <0.001** |
| Median sample vol ml (IQR)# | 2.5 (1.9, 3.4) | 2.8 (2.0, 4.0) | <0.001** |
| Median HBS (IQR)# | 87.5 (74.5, 93.0) | 81 (55.0, 90.75) | <0.001** |
| Mean sample vol mL (SD)$ | 2.7 (±1.3) | 3.1 (±1.5) | <0.001** |
| Smoker (%)χ2 | |||
| No | 379 (95.9) | 764 (94.6) | 0.367 |
| Yes | 16 (4.1) | 44 (5.4) | |
| Cig cons (mean (SD))$ | 10.53 (5.57) | 8.21 (4.38) | 0.107 |
| Drinker (%)χ2 | |||
| No | 144 (37.9) | 303 (39.6) | 0.632 |
| Yes | 236 (62.1) | 463 (60.4) | |
| Alcohol cons units/week (mean (SD))$ | 7.86 (6.15) | 7.93 (7.09) | 0.898 |
| Recreational drug (%)χ2 | |||
| No | 364 (99.7) | 764 (99.9) | 1 |
| Yes | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.1) | |
| Allocation (%)χ2 | |||
| ICSI | 201 (50.4) | 403 (49.4) | 0.793 |
| PICSI | 198 (49.6) | 413 (50.6) | |
| Outcome (%)χ2 | |||
| No pregnancy | 207 (51.9) | 431 (52.8) | 0.695 |
| Miscarriage | 32 (8.0) | 57 (7.0) | |
| Pre-term | 11 (2.8) | 31 (3.8) | |
| Term birth | 126 (31.6) | 240 (29.4) |
Data from the 1215 samples with selected male baseline measures for couples in the mechanistic cohort are here shown stratified by semen sample classification (normal or abnormal) according to WHO 2010 lower reference values. Abnormal includes any freshly ejaculated sample on the day of treatment with sperm conc ≤15 mml or forward progressive motility ≤31% or both.
Potential differences between category values were checked using t tests ($), Mann–Whitney U tests (#) and Chi-square (χ2) tests. As expected, physiological aspects of semen quality differed between the two classes but there were no other differences. Clinical treatment outcomes did not differ and are shown for information only. **Indicates very highly significant P-value (p < 0.001).
% mean/median prog for mot, % mean/median progressive forward motility; Alcohol cons, alcohol consumption units/week; Cig cons, number of cigarettes/cigars consumed/week; HBS, hyaluronic acid binding score; IQR, interquartile range; Mml, millions of sperm per ml; SD, standard deviation from the mean.
Figure 1.CONSORT chart for the mechanistic cohort and sample processing pipeline. Of the 2772 couples randomized in the Hyaluronic Acid Binding sperm Selection (HABSelect) clinical trial (A), 1247 comprised the mechanistic cohort although owing to clinical, technical and time constraints, 1215 were finally sampled for DNA quality (DNAq). Two samples were associated with couples without eggs and eight samples were associated with clinical pregnancies lost to follow-up. The sample processing pipeline (B) shows the relationships between sample acquisition for the full trial cohort (n = 2752), those samples selected for processing (n = 1245) and covering samples associated with embryo transfers (n = 1162). See Materials and methods and Results sections for full details. DDG, differential density gradient; ND, no data; PICSI, physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection; TNL, TUNEL assay.
Baseline statistics and other relevant parameters stratified by treatment allocation.
| Patient baseline and other relevant parameters | ICSI | PICSI |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 619 | 626 | |
| Age (mean (SD))$ | 35.94 (5.32) | 36.22 (5.75) | 0.373 |
| BMI (mean (SD))$ | 26.90 (4.34) | 27.22 (4.37) | 0.374 |
| Alcohol cons units/week (median [IQR])# | 6.00 [3.00, 10.00] | 6.00 [3.00, 10.00] | 0.938 |
| Cig cons (mean (SD))$ | 0.05 (0.23) | 0.05 (0.21) | 0.636 |
| Mean sperm conc., mml (SD)$ | 13.00 [4.55, 36.50] | 12.80 [5.00, 33.62] | 0.944 |
| Median sperm conc., mml (IQR)# | 18.00 [6.85, 40.00] | 17.75 [5.60, 39.00] | 0.786 |
| Sperm conc., mml categoryχ2 | |||
| <15 × 106 | 329 (53.2) | 330 (52.7) | |
| ≥15 × 106 | 282 (45.6) | 286 (45.7) | 0.899 |
| Mean sample vol, ml (SD)$ | 2.99 (1.59) | 2.93 (1.42) | 0.507 |
| % mean prog for mot (SD)$ | 42.48 (20.15) | 40.40 (18.80) | 0.067 |
| % median prog for mot (IQR)# | 72.34 (25.21) | 72.12 (24.98) | 0.887 |
| HBS (mean (SD))$ | 74.99 (23.88) | 73.08 (24.78) | 0.204 |
|
| |||
| Age (mean (SD))$ | 33.83 (4.19) | 33.74 (4.34) | 0.72 |
| BMI (mean (SD))$ | 24.25 (3.55) | 24.51 (3.49) | 0.193 |
| FSH (miU/ml) (mean (SD))$ | 7.12 (2.27) | 7.00 (2.02) | 0.421 |
| AMH (pmol/l) (mean (SD))$ | 21.53 (18.15) | 21.89 (17.82) | 0.799 |
|
| |||
| Fertilization rate (mean (SD))$ | 0.71 (0.22) | 0.68 (0.24) | 0.007** |
| PNZ (mean (SD))$ | 6.22 (4.07) | 6.02 (4.04) | 0.397 |
| Biochemical pregnancy (mean (SD))$ | 0.48 (0.50) | 0.47 (0.50) | 0.893 |
| Clinical pregnancy (mean (SD))$ | 0.41 (0.49) | 0.42 (0.49) | 0.912 |
| Live births (%)χ2 | 193 (31.1) | 225 (36.0) | 0.078° |
| No live birth (%)χ2 | 427 (68.9) | 400 (64.0) | |
|
| |||
| AO frag | 65.31 (13.70) | 65.23 (14.97) | 0.942 |
| Comet frag | 19.22 (9.96) | 18.63 (9.11) | 0.357 |
| SCD (halo area) pixela | 173.57 (63.01) | 172.71 (63.36) | 0.888 |
| TUNEL frag | 12.33 (15.01) | 12.32 (14.81) | 0.993 |
| HBS | 74.99 (23.88) | 73.08 (24.78) | 0.204 |
Data from 1245 samples comprising the full mechanistic cohort (n = 1247) less two couples with no eggs are shown stratified by treatment allocation for PICSI and ICSI.
Potential differences between category values were checked using t tests ($), Mann–Whitney U tests (#) and Chi-square (χ2) tests.
The table shows that all patient and sample characteristics that should have been independent of allocation did not differ between the subgroups. Although the proportions of normal and abnormal samples in each subgroup were identical, live birth outcomes were weakly influenced by allocation choice (°).
Assays of DNAq (AO, Comet, SCD and TUNEL) reported as % sperm showing DNA fragmentation frag except SCD which measures halo area in pixela. HBS reported as % motile sperm binding to the Hydak slide.
% mean/median prog for mot, mean/median % progressive forward motility; alcohol cons units/week, alcohol consumption units/week; AMH (pmol/l), anti-Mullerian hormone picomoles per litre; AO, acridine orange; cig cons, cigarette/cigar consumption/week; DOA, day of assessment; FSH (mIU/ml), FSH, milli international units per millilitre; HBS, hyaluronan binding score; IQR, interquartile range; PNZ, pronucleate zygote; SCD, sperm chromatin dispersion; TUNEL, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end-labelling.
Figure 2.Comparing HBS and DNAq measures from normal and abnormal sample subgroups. By considering the World Health Organization 2010 lower reference limits for sperm concentration (15 mml) and forward progressive motility (31%), samples were classified into normal (n = 399) and abnormal (n = 816) if they were at or below these limits for either or both measures. Full details of the semen and other parameters of the subgroups are shown in Table I. The violin plots show the quartiles (boxes), minima and maxima (whiskers) and extreme outliers indicated by filled circles for % sperm with DNA fragmentation measured by Acridine orange (AO) (A), Comet (B), TUNEL (C); halo area (pixels2) by sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) (D) and with % binding to hyaluronic acid binding score (HBS) (E). Plots also show the distribution of the data generating these values, highlighting where the data are more (fatter) or less (leaner) densely distributed. The derivation of HBS and DNAq data is provided in Materials and methods and in Supplementary Data. All quartile and mean values from the plots are shown in Supplementary Table SI alongside significance values determined by Mann–Whitney U test.
Inter-assay correlations.
| Assay | AO | Comet | TUNEL | SCD (halo) | HBS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.000 | ||||
|
| 0.049 (n = 517; | 1.000 | |||
|
| 0.037 (n = 495; | 0.054 (n = 728; | 1.000 | ||
|
| 0.085 (n = 250; |
|
| 1.000 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 |
Matrix of Spearman rank correlations (Rho) for pairwise comparisons across DNAq and HBS observations. The numbers of samples with available paired data are indicated (n) followed by the correlation and P-values (significant correlations shown in bold). Of the DNAq assays, only SCD showed significant correlations with Comet and TUNEL. HBS correlated with all DNAq assays. All relationships correlated in the expected (slope) direction.
AO, acridine orange; HBS, hyaluronan binding score; SCD, sperm chromatin dispersion; TUNEL, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end-labelling.
Assays of DNAq (AO, Comet, SCD and TUNEL) reported as % sperm showing DNA fragmentation (frag except SCD which measures halo area in pixel2).
HBS reported as % motile sperm binding to the Hydak slide.
Figure 3.Fertilization rates following ICSI or PICSI. Baseline data are plotted according to treatment allocation (PICSI or ICSI) and showing quartiles, minima and maxima (A). Following data aggregation (into 10-year intervals for age and 10-scale points for HBS and DNAq), plots for the model predicting fertilization rates (0.00; no fertilization, 1.00; 100% fertilized) retained treatment allocation shown in relation to female (B) and male (C) age and the Comet assay (D). Note that increasing levels of DNA fragmentation were associated with lower predicted fertilization rates in both arms of the trial arm. Plots show moving average and surrounding 95% CI envelopes where appropriate. The absence of scatter in the Comet plot is because DNAq was the only variable, other than treatment allocation, with a significant impact on predicted fertilization rates. Odds ratios for fertilization rates are presented in Table IV. DNAq, DNA quality, HBS, hyaluronic acid binding score; PICSI, physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
Figure 4.Predicting live birth rates following ICSI or PICSI. Following data aggregation as above, a model for predicting rates of live birth retained treatment allocation, as shown here, in relation to female (A) and male (B) age along with the AO assay (C). The Comet assay (D) is also shown because its predictive value by univariable analysis was close to that of AO. Plots show moving average and surrounding 95% CI envelopes with predicted live birth rates. Note the strong mitigating effect of PICSI treatment on falling births among older women, which is also responsible for the absence or reduction of scatter in the PICSI plots for DNAq. Scales for clinical pregnancies giving rise to live births are shown ranging from 20% (0.20) to 100% (1.00). Odds ratios for live birth are presented in Table IV. AO, acridine orange; DNAq, DNA quality; PICSI, physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
Models integrating sperm function assays with clinical outcomes by gestational progression.
| Outcome | 0 | 1 | OR (Uv 95% CI) |
| OR (Mv 95% CI) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Allocation (n) | ICSI (n = 619) | 29% | 71% | |||||
| Allocation (n) | Mean (SD) | ICSI (n = 619) | 29% | 71% | ||||
| PICSI (n = 626) | 32% | 68% | 0.837 (0.771–0.907) |
| 0.830 (0.754–0.913) |
| ||
| Female age | Mean (SD) | 0.910 (0.827–1.002) |
| |||||
| Male age | Mean (SD) | 0.929 (0.864–1.000) |
| |||||
| HBS | 1.022 (1.003–1.041) |
| ||||||
| AO frag | Mean (SD) | 0.970 (0.931–1.011) |
| |||||
| Comet frag | Mean (SD) | 0.954 (0.910–1.002) |
| 0.950 (0.906–0.998) |
| |||
| TUNEL frag | Mean (SD) | 0.965 (0.936–0.996) |
| |||||
| SCD halo areaa | Mean (SD) | 1.010 (1.000–1.021) |
| |||||
|
| ||||||||
|
| MET | 285 (47.9) | 310 (52.1) | |||||
| 284 (50.1) | 283 (49.9) | 0.916 (0.728–1.153) |
| |||||
| Allocation (%) | ICSI (n = 578) | 281 (48.6) | 297 (51.4) | |||||
| PICSI (n = 584) | 288 (49.3) | 296 (50.7) | 0.972 (0.773–1.224) |
| ||||
| Female age | Mean (SD) | 3.4 (0.4) | 3.3 (0.4) | 0.608 (0.460–0.801) |
| |||
| Male age | Mean (SD) | 3.7 (0.6) | 3.5 (0.5) | 0.625 (0.504–0.773) |
| 0.464 (0.314–0.674) |
| |
| HBS | Mean (SD) | 7.4 (2.4) | 7.3 (2.4) | 0.987 (0.938–1.039) |
| |||
| AO frag | Mean (SD) | 64.9 (14.6) | 65.4 (14.3) | 1.002 (0.991–1.014) |
| |||
| Comet frag | Mean (SD) | 19.4 (9.5) | 18.5 (9.6) | 0.989 (0.975–1.003) |
| |||
| TUNEL frag | Mean (SD) | 11.8 (14.8) | 12.4 (13.9) | 1.003 (0.993–1.012) |
| |||
| SCD halo areaa | Mean (SD) | 16.5 (6.4) | 18 (6.0) | 1.041 (1.008–1.075) |
| 1.04 (1.007–1.075) |
| |
|
| ||||||||
|
| MET | 41 (13.2) | 269 (86.8) | |||||
| 35 (12.4) | 248 (87.6) | 1.080 (0.667–1.757) |
| |||||
| Allocation (%) | ICSI (n = 297) | 40 (13.5) | 257 (86.5) | |||||
| PICSI (n = 296) | 36 (12.2) | 260 (87.8) | 1.124 (0.694–1.826) |
| ||||
| Female age | Mean (SD) | 3.3 (0.4) | 3.3 (0.4) | 0.951 (0.528–1.707) |
| |||
| Male age | Mean (SD) | 3.4 (0.5) | 3.6 (0.5) | 1.660 (1.039–2.706) |
| |||
| HBS | Mean (SD) | 7.4 (2.5) | 7.3 (2.4) | 0.991 (0.882–1.104) |
| |||
| AO frag | Mean (SD) | 65.2 (14.1) | 65.4 (14.4) | 1.001 (0.977–1.025) |
| |||
| Comet frag | Mean (SD) | 16.2 (8.2) | 18.8 (9.8) | 1.031 (0.998–1.069) |
| |||
| TUNEL frag | Mean (SD) | 14.2 (14.3) | 12.2 (13.8) | 0.991 (0.972–1.012) |
| |||
| SCD halo areaa | Mean (SD) | 18.8 (4.4) | 18.0 (6.1) | 0.976 (0.895–1.056) |
| |||
|
| ||||||||
|
| MET | 47 (17.7) | 219 (82.3) | |||||
| 45 (18.5) | 198 (81.5) | 0.944 (0.601–1.486) |
| |||||
| Allocation (%) | ICSI (n = 253) | 60 (23.7) | 193 (76.3) | |||||
| PICSI (n = 255) | 32 (12.5) | 225 (87.5) | 2.186 (1.375–3.531) |
| 2.167 (1.084–4.464) |
| ||
| Female age | Mean (SD) | 3.5 (0.4) | 3.3 (0.4) | 0.373 (0.205–0.664) |
| 0.301 (0.113–0.761) |
| |
| Male age | Mean (SD) | 3.7 (0.6) | 3.5 (0.5) | 0.677 (0.451–1.021) |
| |||
| HBS | Mean (SD) | 7.6 (2.1) | 7.3 (2.5) | 0.946 (0.844–1.051) |
| |||
| AO frag | Mean (SD) | 6.9 (1.1) | 6.5 (1.5) | 0.780 (0.601–0.997) |
| 0.788 (0.602–1.016) |
| |
| Comet frag | Mean (SD) | 2.1 (1.0) | 1.8 (1.0) | 0.786 (0.603–1.029) |
| |||
| TUNEL frag | Mean (SD) | 10.2 (10.3) | 12.6 (14.4) | 1.014 (0.992–1.040) |
| |||
| SCD halo areaa | Mean (SD) | 17.9 (5.6) | 18.0 (6.3) | 1.003 (0.938–1.068) |
| |||
Odds ratios (ORs) are shown for clinical outcome measures compared with patient baseline characteristics by univariable (Uv) or multivariable (Mv) regression. They are ordered according to gestational progression with fertilization rates leading to the formation of pronucleate zygotes (fert pnz) to biochemical pregnancy (biochem preg) following embryo transfer(s) indicated by detection of urinary hcGH, to conversion of a biochemical to a clinical pregnancy (bioch to clin preg), indicated by ultrasound and finally to live birth (liv brth). Sample sizes differ according to clinical progression with all clinical outcomes reported as a fraction of the full mechanistic cohort less two couples with no eggs (n = 1245). Calculations are based on clinical outcomes at each gestational stage as indicated by 0 (negative) or 1 (positive). Hence embryo transfers were recorded for 1162 (93.3%) couples in the mechanistic cohort. Of these, 593 (51%) women were biochemically pregnant, 517 (41.5%) established a confirmed clinical pregnancy, 418 (35.6%) went on to a live birth and 92 miscarried. No treatment outcomes beyond clinical pregnancy were recorded for 8 couples. The models indicate that only fertilization and live birth rates differed significantly between the trial arms (following Mv regression). Values for all other baseline parameters also reflect all patients in the mechanistic cohort (Table II).
AO, acridine orange; HBS, hyaluronan binding score; MET, multiple embryo transfers; Mv, multivariable regression; SCD, sperm chromatin dispersion; TUNEL, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end-labelling; Uv, univariable.
Signifies data aggregated by decade interval for patient age or by 10-point difference for all other measurements.
Assays of DNAq (AO, Comet, SCD and TUNEL) reported as % sperm showing DNA fragmentation (frag except SCD which measures halo area in pixel2).
HBS reported as % motile sperm binding to the Hydak slide.
* Indicates high significant (p < 0.05); ** Indicates very highly significant (p < 0.001).
Figure 5.Predicting biochemical pregnancy rates following ICSI or PICSI. Following data aggregation as above, a model for predicting biochemical pregnancy rates is shown here in relation to female (A) and male (B) age. The model retained male age and the SCD assay presented as halo area in pixel2 units (C). Plots show moving average and surrounding 95% CI envelopes where appropriate. Note the absence of any treatment effect. Scales for embryo transfers generating biochemical pregnancies are shown ranging from 20% (0.20) to 100% (1.00). Odds ratios for biochemical pregnancy are presented in Table IV. SCD, sperm chromatin dispersion.
Figure 6.Predicting rates of conversion from biochemical to clinical pregnancy following ICSI or PICSI. The equivalent model for predicting successful conversion from biochemical to clinical pregnancy is plotted in relation to female (A) and male (B) age. Plots show moving average and surrounding 95% CI envelopes where appropriate. As indicated by unvariable regression, male age was predictive for conversion but only weakly so. Scales for conversion rates are shown ranging from 75% (0.75) to 95% (0.95). Odds ratios for clinical pregnancy are presented in Table IV. PICSI, physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection.