Cargando…

Assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the United States, 2017–2018: data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and treatment characteristics of assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles involving specific male factor infertility diagnoses in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of ART cycles in the National ART Surveillance System (NASS). SETTING: Clin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jewett, Amy, Warner, Lee, Kawwass, Jennifer F., Mehta, Akanksha, Eisenberg, Michael L., Nangia, Ajay K., Dupree, James M., Honig, Stanton, Hotaling, James M., Kissin, Dmitry M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9250125/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35789711
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2022.03.004
_version_ 1784739739989966848
author Jewett, Amy
Warner, Lee
Kawwass, Jennifer F.
Mehta, Akanksha
Eisenberg, Michael L.
Nangia, Ajay K.
Dupree, James M.
Honig, Stanton
Hotaling, James M.
Kissin, Dmitry M.
author_facet Jewett, Amy
Warner, Lee
Kawwass, Jennifer F.
Mehta, Akanksha
Eisenberg, Michael L.
Nangia, Ajay K.
Dupree, James M.
Honig, Stanton
Hotaling, James M.
Kissin, Dmitry M.
author_sort Jewett, Amy
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and treatment characteristics of assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles involving specific male factor infertility diagnoses in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of ART cycles in the National ART Surveillance System (NASS). SETTING: Clinics that reported patient ART cycles performed in 2017 and 2018. PATIENT(S): Patients who visited an ART clinic and the cycles were reported in the NASS. The ART cycles included all autologous and donor cycles that used fresh or frozen embryos. INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analyses used new, detailed reporting of male factor infertility subcategories, treatment characteristics, and male partner demographics available in the NASS. RESULT(S): Among 399,573 cycles started with intent to transfer an embryo, 30.4% (n = 121,287) included a male factor infertility diagnosis as a reason for using ART. Of these, male factor only was reported in 16.5% of cycles, and both male and female factors were reported in 13.9% of cycles; 21.8% of male factor cycles had >1 male factor. Abnormal sperm parameters were the most commonly reported diagnoses (79.7%), followed by medical condition (5.3%) and genetic or chromosomal abnormalities (1.0%). Males aged ≤40 years comprised 59.6% of cycles with male factor infertility. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection was the primary method of fertilization (81.7%). Preimplantation genetic testing was used in 26.8%, and single embryo transfer was used in 66.8% of cycles with male factor infertility diagnosis. CONCLUSION(S): Male factor infertility is a substantial contributor to infertility treatments in the United States. Continued assessment of the prevalence and characteristics of ART cycles with male factor infertility may inform treatment options and improve ART outcomes. Future studies are necessary to further evaluate male factor infertility.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9250125
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92501252022-07-03 Assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the United States, 2017–2018: data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System Jewett, Amy Warner, Lee Kawwass, Jennifer F. Mehta, Akanksha Eisenberg, Michael L. Nangia, Ajay K. Dupree, James M. Honig, Stanton Hotaling, James M. Kissin, Dmitry M. F S Rep Original Article OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and treatment characteristics of assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles involving specific male factor infertility diagnoses in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of ART cycles in the National ART Surveillance System (NASS). SETTING: Clinics that reported patient ART cycles performed in 2017 and 2018. PATIENT(S): Patients who visited an ART clinic and the cycles were reported in the NASS. The ART cycles included all autologous and donor cycles that used fresh or frozen embryos. INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analyses used new, detailed reporting of male factor infertility subcategories, treatment characteristics, and male partner demographics available in the NASS. RESULT(S): Among 399,573 cycles started with intent to transfer an embryo, 30.4% (n = 121,287) included a male factor infertility diagnosis as a reason for using ART. Of these, male factor only was reported in 16.5% of cycles, and both male and female factors were reported in 13.9% of cycles; 21.8% of male factor cycles had >1 male factor. Abnormal sperm parameters were the most commonly reported diagnoses (79.7%), followed by medical condition (5.3%) and genetic or chromosomal abnormalities (1.0%). Males aged ≤40 years comprised 59.6% of cycles with male factor infertility. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection was the primary method of fertilization (81.7%). Preimplantation genetic testing was used in 26.8%, and single embryo transfer was used in 66.8% of cycles with male factor infertility diagnosis. CONCLUSION(S): Male factor infertility is a substantial contributor to infertility treatments in the United States. Continued assessment of the prevalence and characteristics of ART cycles with male factor infertility may inform treatment options and improve ART outcomes. Future studies are necessary to further evaluate male factor infertility. Elsevier 2022-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9250125/ /pubmed/35789711 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2022.03.004 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Jewett, Amy
Warner, Lee
Kawwass, Jennifer F.
Mehta, Akanksha
Eisenberg, Michael L.
Nangia, Ajay K.
Dupree, James M.
Honig, Stanton
Hotaling, James M.
Kissin, Dmitry M.
Assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the United States, 2017–2018: data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System
title Assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the United States, 2017–2018: data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System
title_full Assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the United States, 2017–2018: data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System
title_fullStr Assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the United States, 2017–2018: data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System
title_full_unstemmed Assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the United States, 2017–2018: data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System
title_short Assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the United States, 2017–2018: data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System
title_sort assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the united states, 2017–2018: data from the national assisted reproductive technology surveillance system
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9250125/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35789711
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2022.03.004
work_keys_str_mv AT jewettamy assistedreproductivetechnologycyclesinvolvingmalefactorinfertilityintheunitedstates20172018datafromthenationalassistedreproductivetechnologysurveillancesystem
AT warnerlee assistedreproductivetechnologycyclesinvolvingmalefactorinfertilityintheunitedstates20172018datafromthenationalassistedreproductivetechnologysurveillancesystem
AT kawwassjenniferf assistedreproductivetechnologycyclesinvolvingmalefactorinfertilityintheunitedstates20172018datafromthenationalassistedreproductivetechnologysurveillancesystem
AT mehtaakanksha assistedreproductivetechnologycyclesinvolvingmalefactorinfertilityintheunitedstates20172018datafromthenationalassistedreproductivetechnologysurveillancesystem
AT eisenbergmichaell assistedreproductivetechnologycyclesinvolvingmalefactorinfertilityintheunitedstates20172018datafromthenationalassistedreproductivetechnologysurveillancesystem
AT nangiaajayk assistedreproductivetechnologycyclesinvolvingmalefactorinfertilityintheunitedstates20172018datafromthenationalassistedreproductivetechnologysurveillancesystem
AT dupreejamesm assistedreproductivetechnologycyclesinvolvingmalefactorinfertilityintheunitedstates20172018datafromthenationalassistedreproductivetechnologysurveillancesystem
AT honigstanton assistedreproductivetechnologycyclesinvolvingmalefactorinfertilityintheunitedstates20172018datafromthenationalassistedreproductivetechnologysurveillancesystem
AT hotalingjamesm assistedreproductivetechnologycyclesinvolvingmalefactorinfertilityintheunitedstates20172018datafromthenationalassistedreproductivetechnologysurveillancesystem
AT kissindmitrym assistedreproductivetechnologycyclesinvolvingmalefactorinfertilityintheunitedstates20172018datafromthenationalassistedreproductivetechnologysurveillancesystem