Next Article in Journal
W Chromosome Evolution by Repeated Recycling in the Frog Glandirana rugosa
Previous Article in Journal
Mitochondrial DNA: Consensuses and Controversies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
DNA
Volume 2
Issue 3
10.3390/dna2030011
dna-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

The Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid Binding (HAB) in the Treatment of Male Infertility: A Systematic Review of the Literature

by
Róisín Ní Dhuifin
1,
Darren K. Griffin
2 and
Therishnee Moodley
3,*
1
School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK
2
School of Biosciences, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NF, UK
3
Centre for Reproductive Medicine, St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
DNA 2022, 2(3), 149-171; https://doi.org/10.3390/dna2030011
Submission received: 27 April 2022 / Revised: 2 July 2022 / Accepted: 5 July 2022 / Published: 18 July 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Hyaluronic acid (HA)-binding is reported to predict the fertilising capacity of spermatozoa, while HA-bound sperm selection is reported to reduce the incidence of miscarriage. However, the clinical effectiveness of these techniques remains uncertain. This work investigated the prognostic value of sperm-HA binding (HAB) as a predictor of treatment outcomes, and whether HAB-sperm selection for Invitro fertilisation (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) improves clinical outcomes or reduces miscarriage rates. A systematic review of the literature was carried out. A modified version of the Downs and Black Checklist was used to assess bias and study quality on eleven selected studies. No significant correlations were found between HAB score and fertilisation, clinical pregnancy, or live birth rates (low-quality evidence). Three studies reported a significant reduction in the incidence of miscarriage, including a Cochrane review (low-quality evidence). While the prognostic value of HAB scores is currently undetermined, there is evidence that HAB-sperm selection prior to insemination reduces the incidence of miscarriage following ART. Moreover, there are no reports of detrimental effects of HAB-sperm selection on treatment outcomes when compared with conventional IVF or ICSI. Therefore, it is unclear why it is assigned as a treatment “add-on” with a red light by the HFEA, and why its routine use is not recommended.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Technological advances for the treatment of infertility have been considerable over the last decade. Despite this, in vitro fertilisation (IVF) success rates remain typically under 50% in most clinics [1]. While factors such as embryo culture conditions may contribute to this, gamete quality also plays a key role in embryonic development [2,3].
It has been reported that the integrity of the paternal genome can significantly impact successful embryo development and subsequent pregnancy outcomes [4,5,6]. Patients suffering from male factor infertility commonly present with higher frequencies of DNA damage and packaging defects. Consequently, in cases of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), there may be an increased risk of selecting sperm of suboptimal fertilising potential [6]. Moreover, for female patients over 35 years of age, the DNA repair mechanisms of the oocyte may be compromised and unable to overcome significant sperm DNA damage. A combination of these factors may account for poor success rates, as well as the increased risks of pregnancy loss associated with assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles when compared to natural conception [6].
Male infertility is gradually on the rise [7], however sperm preparation and semen analysis have remained largely unchanged since the inception of IVF. Crucially, and the fertilising potential of individual sperm is not assessed [8], limiting diagnostic and prognostic values [9,10,11] as an inability to conceive despite normal semen parameters is common [12]. Therefore, a wealth of research has focused on improving the efficiency of sperm selection techniques, as well as the development of functional assays designed to select sperm based on preferred characteristics to optimise treatment outcomes. An example of this is sperm-hyaluronic acid binding (HAB).
Hyaluronic acid (HA) is abundant in vivo and acts as a physiological selector of mature sperm with low levels of DNA fragmentation, as described elsewhere [13,14,15]. Based on this selective ability, a diagnostic tool has been developed—the sperm hyaluronan-binding assay (HBA) [16]—where the number of HA-bound and unbound sperm are calculated in each sample. It is reported that the proportion of sperm with fertilising ability is predictive of the likelihood of successful outcomes in conventional IVF [17,18] and ICSI cycles [19]. It is suggested that much like the Hemi-Zona Assay, HBA may be used as a diagnostic supplement to traditional semen analysis to assist with treatment modality selection, while eliminating the need for assays requiring the human zona pellucida (ZP).
HA-binding may also be used to select mature sperm for insemination (Figure 1). HA-rich viscous media, such as SpermSlow (CooperSurgical, Måløv, Denmark), represent alternatives to polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) during the sperm-immobilisation stages of ICSI. As HA-containing products are not associated with adverse effects on post-injection embryo development and can be metabolised by the oocyte [20,21,22], it is unlikely that introduction to the ooplasm during injection would compromise embryonic viability. Studies have reported a similar effectiveness of HA media when compared to PVP, without the associated defects in embryo development [23,24]. Moreover, there are reports that HA media may reduce the incidence of early pregnancy loss in ICSI cases [25,26,27].
Commercially available physiological ICSI (PICSI) dishes, containing micro-drops of dense HA media, may also be used in sperm selection prior to ICSI [28,29]. A number of studies report varying increases in fertilisation, embryo development, implantation, and clinical pregnancy rates following ICSI insemination with HA selected sperm. The results are, however, inconsistent between studies [28,30]. Large multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported no statistically significant difference in implantation or clinical pregnancy rates when compared with conventional ICSI, however significant decreases in the incidence of pregnancy loss were identified [31,32].
Recent Cochrane Database reviews reported that the evidence from RCTs thus far was insufficient to draw any clear conclusions on the efficacy of HA-binding to improve clinical pregnancy or live birth rates [33,34,35]. However, these reviews, along with other large-scale studies, did report significant decreases in miscarriage rates following insemination with HA selected sperm compared with conventional ICSI [26,31,33,34,35]. Moreover, no studies report adverse effects on clinical outcomes following HA-sperm selection. Notwithstanding, HA-binding not being recommended for routine clinical use is a matter of heated debate [31,36,37].
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the UK government regulator of ART and embryological research, published a consensus statement on the use of IVF “add-on” treatments [38], including PICSI. This was an attempt to guide both professionals and patients on how the use of such “add-ons” should be approached to protect patients from financial exploitation. A traffic light system was launched to present their evaluation of the evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of a number of commonly utilised “add-on” laboratory and clinical treatments, typically offered at additional cost.
A red light, as assigned to PICSI, signifies that no evidence of safety or effectiveness, as reported by an RCT, supports the routine use of the treatment [39]. While this is not a ban on the use of these adjuvant treatments, allowing some patient autonomy, it reflects the HFEA’s stance that this treatment should not be offered to patients at additional cost under the guise of increasing the likelihood of live birth, and should strictly be applied only in a research setting. However, due to the lack of green lighting in the scheme, it is difficult to envisage how clinical guidelines on which specific infertility aetiologies may benefit from any add-on treatment might proceed. This is much needed to aid clinicians in their recommendations of any treatment supplement to specific patient groups, e.g., those suffering recurrent fertilisation failure or recurrent pregnancy loss.
Despite evidence of the potential benefits of HAB, there remains no consensus on which patient groups, if any, would benefit the most, even in a research setting. Additionally, there are no known practice guidelines on how such patients should be managed by the clinical team. This study seeks to determine whether the evidence, as it stands, is sufficient to dismiss the routine use of HAB in the clinical setting or accept that adoption of such techniques may benefit specific sub-populations of patients. Specifically, the questions posed to frame this issue are: How robust is the evidence that HAB-sperm selection:
  • Provides prognostic information regarding the likelihood of success of treatment via HAB scores? (Study question 1)
  • Improves the incidence of miscarriage/pregnancy loss following insemination with HAB selected sperm compared with conventional insemination techniques? (Study question 2)
  • Improves clinical outcomes (e.g., live birth rates) compared with conventional IVF/ICSI in the unexplained infertility population? (Study question 3)

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic search of published studies up to November 2020 was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [40]. PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Databases were searched. The Embase database was not included as access was inconsistent.
Other searches included:
  • Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)
  • US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov)
  • Hand-searching through reference lists and citing articles of selected studies. This review was not registered.

2.1. Search Terms for Each of the Research Questions

The following research questions were included:
  • Is sperm HAB score prior to insemination predictive of clinical outcomes?
  • Does sperm selection by HAB reduce the rate of pregnancy loss in IVF or ICSI cycles?
  • Does sperm selection by HAB improve clinical outcomes for all infertility patients?
The following keywords, as well as respective combinations, were chosen: (“hyaluronic acid binding” or “hyaluronan binding”), (“sperm” or “spermatozoa“), (‘IVF” or “in vitro fertilization” or ‘ICSI” or “intracytoplasmic sperm injection”), (“predict” or “predictive” or “prognostic”), (“miscarriage” or “pregnancy loss” or “abortion”), (“PICSI” or “physiological ICSI”).

2.2. Types of Studies

The searches were restricted to English language and human only studies, including clinical trials, RCTs, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. Non-randomised, retrospective, and observational studies were also included to ensure all evidence on the topic was reviewed.
The titles and abstracts of all identified studies were assessed, and once deemed relevant, the full-text articles were retrieved. The reviewers then assessed the full text while searching the reference lists for additional studies. Studies were excluded if they were not published as full-text articles, e.g., abstract only articles and posters. The main study outcomes of interest were fertilisation rate, clinical pregnancy rate (defined as the presence of a gestational sac on ultrasound), pregnancy loss rate (PLR, defined as miscarriage per clinical pregnancy), and live birth rate. Studies which did not report either fertilisation rate (FR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), pregnancy loss rate (PLR), or live birth rate (LBR) were not included. Other outcomes of interest included cleavage rate, embryo quality, and implantation rate. Studies which reported at least one of the following for the outcomes of interest were included: odds ratios (OR), relative risk (RR), or mean difference.

2.3. Types of Participants

The following exclusion criteria were also applied:
  • Advanced maternal age (>43 years)
  • Use of donated gametes
  • Use of surgically retrieved sperm

2.4. Quality and Risk of Bias Assessments

The quality of the study methodology was assessed using a modified “Downs and Black standardised checklist”, rating items across study quality, external validity, bias, and confounding factors and selection bias [41]. This checklist was combined with a more recent checklist by Meader et al. [42], which is designed to enhance the reproducibility of GRADE assessments, the format utilised by Cochrane Reviews [43]. This was then used to present a comprehensive “Traffic Light” diagram to report the relative quality/risk of bias for each study.

3. Results

3.1. Can Assessment of Sperm Function by HA-Binding Predict Clinical Outcomes?

The initial database search yielded 71 results, while cross-referencing of relevant articles identified 3 additional articles. Then, 28 articles were deemed relevant and the full texts were retrieved for assessment, leading to the exclusion of 20 articles (see Figure 2), and the inclusion of 8 studies. The inclusion of studies without any randomisation of subjects was deemed appropriate considering that the HAB score procedure is diagnostic and will not introduce any bias. Included studies are summarised in Table 1. A summary of quality and bias assessment results is provided in Figure 3.

3.1.1. Fertilisation Rate (FR)

Six of the included studies reported fertilisation rates [31,44,45,46,47,48]. Esterhuizen et al. calculated the HAB score of raw semen samples in 91 couples undergoing conventional ICSI, reporting a significant positive correlation between HAB score and fertilisation rates (R = 0.60, p = 0.0001) [44]. Breznik et al. reported similar results in a prospective, controlled study of 133 couples diagnosed with male factor or unexplained infertility, where HA-binding assessments were carried out on density gradient centrifugation (DGC)-prepared sperm used in IVF cycles only [47]. Moreover, when results were analysed using ROC curves regarding achieving 50% fertilisation rates, the curves were statistically significant (p = 0.007), and fertilisation > 50% was associated with significantly higher HAB scores when compared with <50% (p = 0.019). However, no statistically significant associations were reported in ICSI cycles.
A similar trend was reported by Mokánszki et al., though this did not reach statistical significance (R = 0.53, p ≥ 0.05) [46]. While fertilisation rates were compared between the study (PICSI) and control (ICSI) groups and significant differences were identified, this analysis was not extended to compare rates between the different categories of HAB score analysed in this study (>60%, <60%, >70%, <50%) across both treatment groups. Therefore, while rates differ between the categories, it is not determined whether these differences are significant. While Miller et al. reported fertilisation rates, no significant correlation between HAB score and FR was reported [31]. The remaining studies reported no statistically significant correlations.

3.1.2. Clinical Pregnancy Rates (CPR)

Seven of the included studies reported clinical pregnancy rates [19,26,31,44,45,46,48]. Three studies reported no statistically significant correlations between HAB score and clinical pregnancy rates [44,45,48]. While one study reported a significant correlation between HAB scores and CPRs [19], they were unable to verify the validity of the reported 65% lower binding limit. Three studies reported CPRs with patients stratified by HAB score, however analysis was not carried out to determine the effects of HAB score on CPRs [26,31,46]. Therefore, no significant relationship between HAB scores and clinical pregnancy rates was identified.

3.1.3. Live Birth Rates (LBR)

One study, a prospective, randomised, double-blind controlled trial assessing 2752 couples undergoing conventional ICSI or PICSI, reported live birth rates [31]. However, they reported no differential effect of HAB score on the incidence of live birth between the two treatment groups.

3.2. Is the Incidence of Miscarriage/Pregnancy Loss Reduced following Insemination with HAB Selected Sperm Compared with Conventional Insemination Techniques?

The initial database search yielded 82 results, while cross-referencing of relevant articles identified 8 additional articles. Then, 23 articles were deemed relevant, and the full text was retrieved for assessment, leading to the exclusion of 17 articles (see Figure 4), and the inclusion of 5 studies. Included studies are summarised in Table 2. This included four prospective randomised controlled trials [26,28,31,49], two of which were blinded [26,31], and one Cochrane systematic review [34]. A summary of the results of quality and bias assessments is provided in Figure 5.
Three studies reported small decreases in PLR when comparing HA-ICSI, using either HA-rich media [28], or PICSI [49,50] with conventional ICSI, however these failed to reach statistical significance. However, a large-scale, multicentre trial including 2752 couples reported a significant decrease of 2.7% in PLRs in PICSI cycles compared to ICSI (OR = 0.61, p = 0.0003) [31]. A second, smaller study [26], which employed the use of HA-rich viscous media for sperm selection, reported similar trends, however this only reached statistical significance when data were stratified by HAB score (<65%) (see Table 2). This difference remained significant when HAB scores from both raw and prepared semen were analysed.
A Cochrane systematic review of advanced sperm selection techniques in an unselected infertility population also reported pregnancy loss [34]. They reported that, based on low-quality evidence from three RCTS, including 3005 cycles, miscarriage per woman randomly assigned was reduced from 70 to 43 per 1000 participants (RR = 0.62) when comparing ICSI with HA-ICSI. Moreover, they also reported miscarriage per clinical pregnancy based on low-quality evidence from 3 RCTs, including 1065 cycles, and estimated a reduction from 197 to 122 per 1000 participants (RR = 0.62).

3.3. Can HAB-Sperm Selection Improve Clinical Outcomes Compared with Conventional IVF/ICSI in the Unexplained Infertility Population?

The initial database search yielded 47 results, while cross-referencing of relevant articles identified 33 additional articles. Then, 28 articles were deemed relevant, and the full texts were retrieved for assessment, leading to the exclusion of 20 articles (see Figure 6), and the inclusion of 8 studies, including 2 systematic reviews and 6 prospective randomised studies. Included studies are summarised in Table 3. A summary of quality and bias assessment results is provided in Figure 7.

3.3.1. Fertilisation Rates (FR)

Five studies reported FR, including one systematic review [51] and four RCTs [28,31,49,50]. Beck-Fruchter et al. reported that despite analysing the results of 9700 injected oocytes from 7 studies, there was no association between HA sperm selection and FRs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.06) [51]. While FRs were higher in HA-ICSI in 1 RCT assessing 232 couples [28], this did not reach statistical significance. Similarly, Miller et al. and Majumdar et al. did not report any statistical differences in FRs between the treatment groups [31,50].
Conversely, 1 study assessing the effects of both magnetic activated cell sorting (MACS) (see Table 3) and PICSI compared with conventional ICSI in 135 couples undergoing ART reported a decrease in FRs in the PICSI group compared with the ICSI and MACS treatment groups (70.15% vs. 78.97% and 80.28%, respectively, p = 0.036) [49]. Therefore, there is no clear correlation between FRs and HA-ICSI.

3.3.2. Clinical Pregnancy Rates (CPR)

Seven studies reported CPRs, including two systematic reviews [34,51] and five RCTs [26,28,31,49,50]. Beck-Fruchter et al. reported no difference in CPRs per cycle when comparing HA-ICSI and conventional ICSI (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29) [51]. Similarly, based on low-quality evidence in 4 RCTs including 3492 patients, Lepine et al. found no significant differences in CPRs between treatment groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09) [34]. Four RCTs reporting CPRs also failed to report statistically significant differences [26,28,31,50]. While Troya et al. reported a significant difference in CPRs when comparing MACS, ICSI, and PICSI (58.1% vs. 27.3% and 40.4%, p = 0.019), only the difference between MACS and ICSI groups was noted as significant [49]. Therefore, no clear correlation between CPRs and HA-ICSI is reported.

3.3.3. Live Birth Rates (LBR)

Three studies reported LBRs, including one systematic review [34] and two RCTs [31,50]. Miller et al., reported an increase in LBR when comparing PICSI and ICSI in 2752 patients, however this did not reach statistical significance (27.4% vs. 25.1% per woman randomised, RR = 1.12, p = 0.18) [31]. Lepine et al. [34], based on low-quality evidence from two RCTs including the abovementioned papers [31,50], came to a similar conclusion, reporting that little or no difference is observed between study groups per woman randomised (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.23, 2903 patients). Therefore, it remains unclear whether a correlation between LBRs and HA-ICSI exists.

4. Discussion

A main objective of this study was to determine the prognostic value of HAB scores prior to insemination, however, considering the variation in assessment methods, e.g., assessing raw vs. prepared samples, this remains unclear. While the trends were towards improved clinical pregnancy live birth rates following HAB-sperm selection, these differences were not statistically significant. However, this study was able to fulfil the third objective in identifying a significant difference in the incidence of miscarriage following insemination using HAB-sperm.

4.1. Confounding Variables

Inconsistency in sperm-HA binding assessment methodology was identified as a confounder in reviewed studies, and may account for the conflicting evidence presented, particularly as most studies carried out HAB assessments on sperm prepared by various methods [31]. While studies have reported that preparation may improve the concentration of sperm with HA-binding ability [19,52,53], the shear forces involved in multiple centrifugation steps may lead to reduced membrane stability, increased DNA fragmentation, and the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61]. Such factors are reported to have a detrimental impact to early treatment outcomes, such as fertilisation and implantation rates [23,24,62,63,64], and may account for conflicting reports of effects on CPRs and PLRs, as this study has identified no association between HAB score and these outcomes, while many studies failed to report a detailed sub-group analysis of the sperm preparation methods used [26,31,46].
An additional confounder identified in this study was a variation in embryo culture and transfer protocols: all studies carried out both Day 3 and Day 5 embryo transfers, contingent on embryo availability and morphology. While cleavage stage embryo transfer on Day 3 is effective [65], blastocyst transfer on Day 5 may be more representative of in vivo fertilisation and implantation as embryos typically reach the uterus around Day 4 post-fertilisation [66], and is also reported to significantly improve implantation, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates, when compared with cleavage stage transfer [67]. However, the frequency of Day 3 and 5 embryo transfers was not reported in numerous studies, nor were the groups compared for differential effects of embryo transfer protocols.
A recurring issue during the review of the literature was the inclusion of, or failure to exclude, female factor infertility. Mild–moderate endometriosis is associated with poor oocyte and embryo development, while severe endometriosis is associated with significantly lower implantation and clinical pregnancy rates [68]. The mechanisms by which endometriosis impacts fertility are complex and dynamic, including altered inflammatory responses and local action of inflammatory cytokines [68]. Moreover, tubal factors such as hydrosalpinxes [69,70] or uterine fibroids [71] are also associated with poorer clinical outcomes. Therefore, the failure to exclude these conditions may reduce the validity of the reported results.

4.2. HAB Score and Clinical Outcomes

Significant associations were identified between high fertilisation rates (>50%) and HAB scores [44,47]. While this was observed in IVF cycles only in one study [47], similar associations may not arise in ICSI cycles as, despite a higher frequency of sperm with HA-binding ability in high HAB score samples, sperm selection remains dependent on the morphological assessment of the embryologist. Therefore, sperm of reduced binding ability and fertilising capacity may still be selected for ICSI insemination. However, this is important to note as the incorporation of sperm selection methods aimed at increasing the yield of sperm with a high binding capacity into daily practice would reduce the likelihood of this occurring. Moreover, this study calculated HAB scores of sperm prepared by DGC [47]. A similar study [44] reported a significant association between HAB score and fertilisation rates in ICSI cycles, however these results were based on the HA-binding ability of sperm from unprepared semen samples. This suggests that preparation of sperm by DGC may impact the binding ability of sperm.
Based on these results, the specificity of the HAB score as a predictive test of fertilisation may be reduced in ICSI cycles due to the embryologists’ autonomy over sperm selection, as it is generally accepted that ICSI increases the likelihood of injecting oocytes with functionally inferior sperm, e.g., defective in phospholipase C zeta (PLC ζ) content, essential for oocyte activation and successful fertilisation [72] or of low genomic integrity [73]. However, it may present a cheap, effective diagnostic tool in predicting the fertilising ability of sperm in IVF cycles, as it provides a quantification of the proportion of sperm likely to penetrate the cumulus oocyte complex (COC) and ZP, steps essential for fertilisation both in vivo and IVF. Therefore, further studies focusing on IVF cycles only may not only provide further evidence of its applicability to treatment modality selection, but also aid in excluding defective sperm-binding factors in cases of total fertilisation failure, providing information vital to the success of future treatment.

4.3. HAB-Sperm Selection and Pregnancy Loss

While two studies reported no significant difference in PLRs between HA-ICSI and conventional ICSI [28,49], there were significant limitations to these studies. Troya et al. included only normozoospermic patients, excluding male factor infertility, which represents the patient group arguably set to benefit most from the intervention [74], and failing to report sperm morphology parameters of both groups. Parmegiani et al. not only failed to describe exclusion of specific female factor infertility, but the study was also limited to three oocytes injected per patient, as well as the transfer of all produced embryos regardless of morphology or quality, in accordance with Italian law [28]. This reduces the validity and generalisability of these results.
Conversely, a significant reduction in PLRs was identified from three of the included studies [26,31,34]. While this only reached statistical significance in one study following stratification of the patients according to HAB score (>/<65%) [26], a meta-analysis by a Cochrane review identified a significant decrease in PLR across patient groups [34]. While this reduction was not reflected in the LBR, the reported reduction from 70 to 43 per 1000 women randomly assigned remains relevant, as this may not only lead to a reduction in the emotional distress induced by miscarriage but could also increase the cumulative live birth rate following serial embryo transfers in further studies. Further analysis of Miller et al. has also revealed that the reduction in miscarriage was more pronounced in female patients over 35 years of age [75]. It is suggested that as oocyte quality diminishes with maternal age, so too does the competence of oocyte-derived DNA repair mechanisms. Therefore, a reduction in the burden of DNA damaged spermatozoa could have contributed to the reduction in miscarriage rates. Given that this patient group represents a growing demographic of patients seeking ART, these results are profoundly important in steering future practice.

4.4. HAB-Sperm Selection and Clinical Outcomes

The literature on fertilisation and HAB-sperm selection is inconsistent. It is reported that sperm with the capacity bind to HA possess superior chromatin structure and high DNA integrity, which is predictive of fertilising potential. While one study reported a significant reduction in PICSI fertilisation rates compared with MACS, this was not the case when compared with conventional ICSI [49]. Another report of reduced fertilisation rates following PICSI emerged from mechanistic analysis of the HABSelect trial results [75], however this was not subsequently reflected in a reduction in clinical pregnancy or live birth rates [76]. Moreover, a 2019 Cochrane review reported no statistically significant difference in fertilisation rates between HAB-sperm selection and conventional methods [34]. The results of the current review are therefore in line with the literature as it currently stands, that there is no significant difference in fertilisation rates when HAB-sperm selection is employed.
One study reported higher CPRs in the intervention groups (PICSI and MACS) than the conventional ICSI group, however this did not reach statistical significance in the case of PICSI [49]. This not only highlights that patients with male factor infertility benefit from an intervention or advanced sperm selection technique, but also that there are no detrimental effects of the use of HAB-sperm selection when compared with routine ICSI practice. The remaining studies reported trends towards improved CPRs and LBRs, however none reached statistical significance. Therefore, the results of this study are in agreement with the current literature, that there is no significant difference in CPRs or LBRs when sperm selection is based on HA-binding. While some improvements were expected, it is equally as important to note that no detrimental effects to clinical outcomes were associated with HAB-sperm selection, even in the “unselected” patient group. Therefore, this technique presents a valid option for the treatment of patient groups commonly excluded from RCTs. For example, a recent study and two meta-analyses have reported that male partners of couples experiencing recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) demonstrate significantly higher sperm ROS concentrations and altered gene expression profiles [77], and increased levels of sperm DNA fragmentation [78,79], suggesting that high frequencies of DNA damage may be beyond the repair capabilities of the oocyte, and consequent chromosomal anomalies may be incompatible with post-implantation development and viability. Such patients are increasingly referred for assisted conception techniques despite an ability to naturally achieve pregnancy, while being underrepresented in embryological research [80].
Therefore, considering the apparent reduction in miscarriage following HAB-sperm selection, despite a lack of improvement in live birth rates, the application of HAB-sperm selection in this patient group could reduce the time to live birth per patient, rather than live birth rate per intention to treat as is commonly reported. This could provide real-life benefits to RPL patients, potentially reducing the number of distressing miscarriages while reducing the time to achieving a healthy live birth. This represents a promising area of future research, as it is apparent the current methodology is failing to realise any potentially relevant benefits to specific patient groups.

4.5. Limitations of Included Studies

The included studies claim to have focused on an “unselected” patient group, despite the inclusion of female factor infertility and the exclusion of male factor. Recently, a growing body of evidence has emerged suggesting that ICSI application to unexplained infertility populations is not only less effective compared with conventional IVF, but may be detrimental to clinical outcomes such as CPRs and LBRs [81], while also introducing an unknown risk of congenital abnormalities to the offspring. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that as the included studies largely focused on ICSI cycles in “unexplained infertility” patients, the benefits of HAB-sperm selection cannot fully be realised by such a study design. Given the above reports, HA-supplemented ICSI would likely only benefit patients traditionally referred for ICSI cycles, e.g., teratozoospermia, asthenozoospermia, and oligozoospermia. However, the most common exclusion criteria of the included studies were related to such conditions, excluding male factor infertility including sperm concentration of <10,000–1 million/mL [26,28,45,46,49], or <5% motility [28,46], patients routinely referred for ICSI.
This is supported by small-scale studies assessing only male factor infertility patients, including teratozoospermia and oligoasthenozoospermia [74,82], who not only reported a significant increase in CPRs in the PICSI treatment group compared with ICSI (p = 0.009), but also a more pronounced effect in the teratozoospermia patients, with PICSI serving as an independent factor associated with obtaining at least one good-quality embryo in couples with severe teratozoospermia [82]. Furthermore, retrospective analysis of patients with high DFI also concluded that patients benefitted from some sort of intervention, e.g., TESE/TESA, PICSI, and IMSI [83], with LBRs comparable to those of patients with low DFI. Moreover, the included studies have essentially treated female factor infertility by not excluding both tubal and uterine factor infertility associated with poorer clinical outcomes, which cannot be improved by ICSI insemination. As emerging evidence confirms that a blanket approach to ICSI application is ineffective, it is unreasonable to assume that ICSI supplemented with HA-sperm selection would improve clinical outcomes in these patient groups.
Therefore, further study should actively research the impact of HAB-sperm selection either in conventional IVF cycles of unexplained infertility patients, for the treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss, or in ICSI cycles of patients suffering from male infertility. This would avoid the erroneous dismissal of the technique as ineffective despite real-life benefits to specific patient groups.
More recently, a case report has emerged reporting a healthy live birth and consecutive ongoing pregnancy in a case of severe globozoospermia treated with PICSI, following failed ICSI cycles [84], suggesting that HAB-sperm selection may be beneficial in cases of severe male factor where conventional treatments have failed. However, this singular case report is insufficient to draw robust conclusions on the impact of HAB-sperm selection on specific male infertility factors, highlighting an urgent need for not only further research, but also for the development of a better study design to ensure all patients who may benefit are not only identified, but included.

4.6. HAB Score as a Screening Tool

Conventional semen parameters are poor predictors of fertilisation in vivo or in vitro, and therefore the introduction of additional sperm parameters may assist in combatting the overuse of ICSI, by an enhanced ability to identify male patients eligible for IVF or ICSI insemination [85]. In an effort to tackle this lack of prognostic value, many studies have sought to develop screening procedures, which are largely focused on the measurement of DNA fragmentation via a DNA Fragmentation Index (DFI), with several meta-analyses reporting a significant correlation between DFI and clinical outcomes [78,86,87]. However, not only is there a lack of standardisation of measurement procedures, e.g., TUNEL, SCSA, Comet, etc., but these techniques require expensive equipment and are time-consuming. Moreover, the efficacy of measurement varies between techniques [86,88,89]. However, the materials required for HA-binding are readily available in all ART clinics, relatively inexpensive, and more importantly, HA-binding is associated with decreased levels of DNA fragmentation [26,28,90].
While the specificity of HAB scoring may not yet be optimised, this provides a cheap, effective, and quick measure of sperm fertilising ability via conventional IVF, and may therefore be used as a screening process prior to the selection of treatment modality and patient referral, while also providing key information of where defects may have arisen in cases resulting in fertilisation failure.

4.7. Future Approaches by the Clinic and the HFEA

The HFEA has understandably decided to promote a more transparent and honest approach to the utilisation of add-ons following numerous reports of promotion of treatments to improve profitability rather than patient care [91,92]. This led to the introduction of the “Traffic Light System”. However, due to the regulatory scrutiny and financial burden of undertaking large studies [93], there is a paucity of high-quality RCTs reporting benefits of any such treatment, and thus far no add-ons have been given the green light for routine practice. While this does not represent a ban on the use of this technique, and may create a more ethical approach and reduce the potential financial exploitation of desperate patients, it also poses a massive obstacle to treatment innovation and the development of individualised care, as for patients with specific infertility aetiologies, e.g., recurrent pregnancy loss and severe teratozoospermia, such treatment supplementation may represent a “last resort” to achieve and maintain a healthy pregnancy, however they will not be routinely offered. Moreover, these patients are routinely excluded from RCTs, and therefore the efficacy of such add-ons in the treatment of specific infertility phenotypes will never be realised by this “evidence-based medicine” approach.
As demonstrated by the included studies, RCTs are commonly designed to assess the use of such treatments in an empirical manner, studying their effects on disease presentation, e.g., unexplained infertility, rather than a specific disease pathology relevant to the scientific basis of the technique itself, in this case, specifically male factor infertility and poor sperm quality. This blanket application of emerging techniques to an unselected population may produce negative effects in some patients while masking the benefits felt by specific sub-populations, leading to the dismissal of treatments as ineffective despite real benefits felt by individual patients. This is the case with HA-sperm selection, as not only were patients predicted to benefit most from the treatment often excluded, but additional confounders were included, particularly both uterine and tubal factor infertility known to affect clinical outcomes but also not routinely referred for treatment by conventional ICSI, the chosen control in most studies. It is noteworthy, however, that despite the limitations of this RCT study design, significant improvements are still observed in the incidence of pregnancy loss.
Most included studies focused on conventional and HA-ICSI. Despite the current requirements of the HFEA, ICSI itself has never been subjected to the same scrutiny before its implementation for routine use [85]. Moreover, ICSI application in cases of non-male factor infertility is continuously rising [94]. While this is “justified” by a potential reduction in the risk of fertilisation failure [95], a wealth of data have reported that ICSI provides no real benefit to non-male factor patients [96], while some report that ICSI application to normozoospermic men may reduce the rates of clinical pregnancy and live birth [81]. Therefore, as well as an urgent need to understand the long-term health outcomes of ICSI conceived offspring [97], this widespread, blanket application of ICSI may reduce treatment effectiveness in individual cases. It is not therefore surprising that significant improvements to outcomes are not realised when HAB-sperm selection is applied to ICSI cycles in unselected populations compared with IVF.
This review has demonstrated that not only is HAB-sperm selection safe without any detrimental effects on clinical outcomes, but it can also reduce the incidence of hugely distressing miscarriages, which could in turn lead to improved live birth rates while reducing the financial burden of pregnancy loss aftercare or further ART cycles. Therefore, the red light assigned to PICSI by the HFEA is rather puzzling, as while the effectiveness of PICSI to improve live birth is currently unproven, no safety concerns have arisen in any published studies. Moreover, this assignment is likely to reduce the number of patients and clinical teams willing to utilise PICSI or HAB-sperm selection, despite potential real-life benefits, and may reduce the trust between patients and the clinicians who recommend its application. It is also important to note that despite its widespread use, ICSI itself has never been assigned a green light by the HFEA.
In order to combat this lack of supporting evidence, while ensuring patients have proper access to potentially beneficial treatment, it has been argued that HAB-sperm selection should not be considered an add-on, and instead introduced into routine practice [37]. This would not only allow specific patient sub-groups to reap the benefits of the technique, but via the collection of individualised patient data (IPD) would allow the HFEA to monitor the clinical outcomes of all UK cycles to produce a comprehensive report on the effects of HA-binding and sperm selection. Moreover, this IPD strategy ensures that specific patient groups will not be erroneously excluded from RCTs, resulting in premature dismissal of the treatment efficacy, while allowing for the development of individualised treatment approaches. An important example of this published during the final stages of proofing this manuscript, is a highly relevant paper, specifically pertaining to the previously published clinical HABSelect trial by Miller et al. (2019) [31], asking what effects HAB select ahead of ICSI had on clinical outcomes. In brief, the findings were that older women who were randomised to the experimental arm of this trial (i.e., sperm selected through HA binding) had live birth rates not significantly different from that of younger women [98]. The authors postulate that this is probably due to “better avoidance” of sperm that had DNA damage. They also pointed out that although HABSelect was a prospective RCT, the group studied was from the recruitment cohort for retrospective analysis, and therefore did not have all the benefits of randomiation. They postulated that DNA damage in the sperm (reflected by lower hyaluronic acid binding) contributed to the depression of all gestational outcomes including live birth rates. They suggested that the interventional avoidance of defective sperm is the best to explain why the younger and older age groups were not different.
Currently, clinical and research staff in the UK must report all treatment outcomes to the HFEA, and therefore an IPD approach presents an opportunity to collect data on treatment effectiveness without the need for expensive, long-winded trials which may produce further inconclusive results. This would also assist in the identification of specific patient sub-groups who benefit from this intervention, and the development of clinical guidelines based on real-life practice.
Moreover, HA-binding is cost-effective and not detrimental to embryo development as HA is easily metabolised by the oocyte [20,22], and can be used in viscous media, e.g., SpermSlow, as a substitute for PVP during ICSI insemination, as studies have reported similar effectiveness of HA media when compared to PVP, without the associated impairment to embryo development [20,29]. This would minimise the changes required to current standard operating practices and the requirement of additional staff training.

4.8. Study Limitations

The conclusions made in this study are only as robust as the source studies. Considering the inconsistent reporting, exclusion and inclusion criteria, and methodological variations between studies, the results of this study are likely impacted by low study quality. However, this further highlights the need for more high-quality and robust research given the lack of understanding surrounding HA-binding sperm selection.

5. Conclusions

Optimal membrane structure and functionality of sperm is dependent on developmental and maturational events in spermiogenesis [9,10,14,16]. Mature sperm have receptors capable of binding to HA and the zona pellucida, and these sperm have been shown to have normal morphology and reduced levels of chromosomal aneuploidy and fragmented DNA. Unbound spermatozoa were shown to have lower levels of receptors for HA as well as higher levels of chromosomal aneuploidy and DNA fragmentation. Just as the zona plays a role in the selection of these mature sperm in conventional IVF insemination, HA-binding may be used as a selection tool for functional sperm in ICSI.
While there is little evidence to suggest HAB-sperm selection improves fertilisation or live birth rates, this technique reportedly improves the incidence of pregnancy loss following ART in an unselected infertility population. However, there is a paucity of data regarding other specific patient groups who would likely benefit from the implementation of this method, e.g., in cases of recurrent pregnancy loss or teratozoospermia. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any adverse effects of HAB-sperm selection on clinical outcomes, making the HFEA’s decision to assign the technique a red light, and recommendations against the routine application of the method, rather puzzling.
These issues can be addressed in two ways: future RCTs should focus on these specific patient groups in order to ascertain if any real benefit is felt by these patients, or the HFEA should remove the “add-on” classification of HA-sperm selection and implement its routine use, in order to collect individualised patient data and better identify which patients, if any, will receive the most benefit from this treatment, and to fully understand the impact of this technique on all clinical outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.M.; methodology, R.N.D. and T.M.; software, R.N.D. and T.M.; validation, R.N.D., T.M. and D.K.G.; formal analysis, R.N.D.; writing—original draft preparation, R.N.D.; writing—review and editing, T.M. and D.K.G.; supervision, T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Christopher Barratt and Vanessa Kay, Course Directors for the MSc in Human Clinical Embryology and Assisted Conception, Department of Medicine, University of Dundee. Lara Girod for contribution to the pictures in the graphical abstract, adapted from her MSc dissertation (University of Dundee, 2019). David Miller for the use of Figure 1 in the introduction.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. De Geyter, C.; Calhaz-Jorge, C.; Kupka, M.S.; Wyns, C.; Mocanu, E.; Motrenko, T.; Scaravelli, G.; Smeenk, J.; Vidakovic, S.; Goossens, V.; et al. ART in Europe, 2014: Results generated from European registries by ESHRE: The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum. Reprod. 2018, 33, 1586–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Colaco, S.; Sakkas, D. Paternal factors contributing to embryo quality. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2018, 35, 1953–1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Keefe, D.; Kumar, M.; Kalmbach, K. Oocyte competency is the key to embryo potential. Fertil. Steril. 2015, 103, 317–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Qiu, J.; Hales, B.F.; Robaire, B. Damage to Rat Spermatozoal DNA after Chronic Cyclophosphamide Exposure1. Biol. Reprod. 1995, 53, 1465–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Qiu, J.; Hales, B.F.; Robaire, B. Effects of Chronic Low-Dose Cyclophosphamide Exposure on the Nuclei of Rat Spermatozoa1. Biol. Reprod. 1995, 52, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sakkas, D.; Manicardi, G.C.; Bizzaro, D.; Bianchi, P.G. Possible consequences of performing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with sperm possessing nuclear DNA damage. Hum. Fertil. 2000, 3, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Sengupta, P.; Borges, E., Jr.; Dutta, S.; Krajewska-Kułak, E. Decline in sperm count in European men during the past 50 years. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2017, 37, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Clermont, Y. The cycle of the seminiferous epithelium in man. Am. J. Anat. 1963, 112, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Huszar, G.; Vigue, L. Spermatogenesis-related change in the synthesis of the creatine kinase B-type and M-type isoforms in human spermatozoa. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 1990, 25, 258–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Huszar, G.; Vigue, L. Correlation between the rate of lipid peroxidation and cellular maturity as measured by creatine kinase activity in human spermatozoa. J. Androl. 1994, 15, 71–77. [Google Scholar]
  11. Aitken, J.; Krausz, C.; Buckingham, D. Relationships between biochemical markers for residual sperm cytoplasm, reactive oxygen species generation, and the presence of leukocytes and precursor germ cells in human sperm suspensions. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 1994, 39, 268–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Effectiveness and treatment for unexplained infertility. Fertil. Steril. 2006, 86, S111–S114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Prinosilova, P.; Kruger, T.; Sati, L.; Ozkavukcu, S.; Vigue, L.; Kovanci, E.; Huszar, G. Selectivity of hyaluronic acid binding for spermatozoa with normal Tygerberg strict morphology. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2009, 18, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Huszar, G.; Ozkavukcu, S.; Jakab, A.; Celik-Ozenci, C.; Sati, G.L.; Cayli, S. Hyaluronic acid binding ability of human sperm reflects cellular maturity and fertilizing potential: Selection of sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 18, 260–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gasca, S.; Pellestor, F.; Assou, S.; Loup, V.; Anahory, T.; Dechaud, H.; De Vos, J.; Hamamah, S. Identifying new human oocyte marker genes: A microarray approach. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2007, 14, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cayli, S.; Jakab, A.; Ovari, L.; Delpiano, E.; Celik-Ozenci, C.; Sakkas, D.; Ward, D.; Huszar, G. Biochemical markers of sperm function: Male fertility and sperm selection for ICSI. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2003, 7, 462–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tarozzi, N.; Nadalini, M.; Bizzaro, D.; Serrao, L.; Fava, L.; Scaravelli, G.; Borini, A. Sperm–hyaluronan-binding assay: Clinical value in conventional IVF under Italian law. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2009, 19 (Suppl 3), 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ye, H.; Huang, G.-N.; Gao, Y.; Liu, D.Y. Relationship between human sperm-hyaluronan binding assay and fertilization rate in conventional in vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 2006, 21, 1545–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Nijs, M.; Creemers, E.; Cox, A.; Janssen, M.; Vanheusden, E.; Van Der Elst, J.; Ombelet, W. Relationship between hyaluronic acid binding assay and outcome in ART: A pilot study. Andrologia 2010, 42, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Balaban, B.; Lundin, K.; Morrell, J.M.; Tjellstrom, H.; Urman, B.; Holmes, P.V. An alternative to PVP for slowing sperm prior to ICSI. Hum. Reprod. 2003, 18, 1887–1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Barak, Y.; Menezo, Y.; Veiga, A.; Elder, K. A physiological replacement for polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) in assisted reproductive technology. Hum. Fertil. 2001, 4, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Van Den Bergh, M.J.; Fahy-Deshe, M.; Hohl, M.K. Pronuclear zygote score following intracytoplasmic injection of hyaluronan-bound spermatozoa: A prospective randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online 2009, 19, 796–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Lin, M.-H.; Kuo-Kuang Lee, R.; Li, S.-H.; Lu, C.-H.; Sun, F.-J.; Hwu, Y.-M. Sperm chromatin structure assay parameters are not related to fertilization rates, embryo quality, and pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection, but might be related to spontaneous abortion rates. Fertil. Steril. 2008, 90, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Parrella, A.; Keating, D.; Cheung, S.; Xie, P.; Stewart, J.D.; Rosenwaks, Z.; Palermo, G.D. A treatment approach for couples with disrupted sperm DNA integrity and recurrent ART failure. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2019, 36, 2057–2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Zhao, J.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Li, Y. Whether sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation has an effect on pregnancy and miscarriage after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2014, 102, 998–1005.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Worrilow, K.C.; Eid, S.; Woodhouse, D.; Perloe, M.; Smith, S.; Witmyer, J.; Ivani, K.; Khoury, C.; Ball, G.D.; Elliot, T.; et al. Use of hyaluronan in the selection of sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI): Significant improvement in clinical outcomes—Multicenter, double-blinded and randomized controlled trial. Hum. Reprod. 2013, 28, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Parmegiani, L.; Cognigni, G.E.; Bernardi, S.; Troilo, E.; Taraborrelli, S.; Arnone, A.; Maccarini, A.M.; Filicori, M. Comparison of two ready-to-use systems designed for sperm–hyaluronic acid binding selection before intracytoplasmic sperm injection: PICSI vs. Sperm Slow: A prospective, randomized trial. Fertil. Steril. 2012, 98, 632–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Parmegiani, L.; Cognigni, G.E.; Bernardi, S.; Troilo, E.; Ciampaglia, W.; Filicori, M. “Physiologic ICSI”: Hyaluronic acid (HA) favors selection of spermatozoa without DNA fragmentation and with normal nucleus, resulting in improvement of embryo quality. Fertil. Steril. 2010, 93, 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Parmegiani, L.; Cognigni, G.E.; Ciampaglia, W.; Pocognoli, P.; Marchi, F.; Filicori, M. Efficiency of hyaluronic acid (HA) sperm selection. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2010, 27, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Nasr-Esfahani, M.H.; Razavi, S.; Vahdati, A.A.; Fathi, F.; Tavalaee, M. Evaluation of sperm selection procedure based on hyaluronic acid binding ability on ICSI outcome. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2008, 25, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Miller, D.; Pavitt, S.; Sharma, V.; Forbes, G.; Hooper, R.; Bhattacharya, S.; Kirkman-Brown, J.; Coomarasamy, A.; Lewis, S.; Cutting, R.; et al. Physiological, hyaluronan-selected intracytoplasmic sperm injection for infertility treatment (HABSelect): A parallel, two-group, randomised trial. Lancet 2019, 393, 416–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Titus, S.; Stobezki, R.; Oktay, K. Impaired DNA Repair as a Mechanism for Oocyte Aging: Is It Epigenetically Determined? Semin. Reprod. Med. 2015, 33, 384–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Alegre, L.; Garrido, N.; Munoz, M.; De Los Santos, M.; Remohi Gimenez, J.; Meseguer, M. Sperm selection with hyaluronic acid (PICSI) improves LBR in IVF treatments. Fertil. Steril. 2017, 108, e130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lepine, S.; McDowell, S.; Searle, L.M.; Kroon, B.; Glujovsky, D.; Yazdani, A. Advanced sperm selection techniques for assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 7, CD010461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. McDowell, S.; Kroon, B.; Ford, E.; Hook, Y.; Glujovsky, D.; Yazdani, A. Advanced sperm selection techniques for assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, 10, Cd010461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Miller, D. Hyaluronan-selected sperm should not be considered an add-on—Author’s reply. Lancet 2019, 394, 1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Parmegiani, L. Hyaluronan-selected sperm should not be considered an add-on. Lancet 2019, 394, 1319–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Treatment add-ons with limited evidence, HFEA. 2022. Available online: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/treatment-add-ons/ (accessed on 4 July 2022).
  39. Macklon, N.S.; Ahuja, K.K.; Fauser, B. Building an evidence base for IVF ‘add-ons’. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2019, 38, 853–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Group, P. Reprint—Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Phys. Ther. 2009, 89, 873–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Downs, S.H.; Black, N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1998, 52, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Meader, N.; King, K.; Llewellyn, A.; Norman, G.; Brown, J.; Rodgers, M.; Moe-Byrne, T.; Higgins, J.P.; Sowden, A.; Stewart, G. A checklist designed to aid consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments: Development and pilot validation. Syst. Rev. 2014, 3, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Balshem, H.; Helfand, M.; Schünemann, H.J.; Oxman, A.D.; Kunz, R.; Brozek, J.; Vist, G.E.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; Meerpohl, J.; Norris, S.; et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2011, 64, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Esterhuizen, A.D.; Franken, D.R.; Bosman, E.; Rodrigues, F.A.; Van Rensburg, J.H.; Van Schouwenburg, J.A.; Lombaard, C. Relationship between human spermatozoa-hyaluronan-binding assay, conventional semen parameters and fertilisation rates in intracytoplasmic spermatozoa injection. Andrologia 2015, 47, 759–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kovacs, P.; Kovats, T.; Sajgo, A.; Szollosi, J.; Matyas, S.; Kaali, S.G. The role of hyaluronic acid binding assay in choosing the fertilization method for patients undergoing IVF for unexplained infertility. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2011, 28, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Mokánszki, A.; Tóthné, E.V.; Bodnár, B.; Tándor, Z.; Molnár, Z.; Jakab, A.; Ujfalusi, A.; Oláh, E. Is sperm hyaluronic acid binding ability predictive for clinical success of intracytoplasmic sperm injection: PICSI vs. ICSI? Syst. Biol. Reprod. Med. 2014, 60, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Pregl Breznik, B.; Kovačič, B.; Vlaisavljević, V. Are sperm DNA fragmentation, hyperactivation, and hyaluronan-binding ability predictive for fertilization and embryo development in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection? Fertil. Steril. 2013, 99, 1233–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Said, T.M.; Land, J.A. Effects of advanced selection methods on sperm quality and ART outcome: A systematic review. Hum. Reprod. Update 2011, 17, 719–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Troya, J.; Zorrilla, I. Annexin V-MACS in infertile couples as method for separation of sperm without DNA fragmentation. JBRA Assist. Reprod. 2015, 19, 66–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Majumdar, G.; Majumdar, A. A prospective randomized study to evaluate the effect of hyaluronic acid sperm selection on the intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome of patients with unexplained infertility having normal semen parameters. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2013, 30, 1471–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Beck-Fruchter, R.; Shalev, E.; Weiss, A. Clinical benefit using sperm hyaluronic acid binding technique in ICSI cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2016, 32, 286–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Worrilow, K.; Eid, S.; Woodhouse, D.; Matthews, J.; Khoury, C.; Witmyer, J. Prospective, multi-center, double-blind, randomized clinical trial evaluating the use of hyaluronan bound sperm (HBS) in ICSI: Statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes. Fertil. Steril. 2011, 96, S58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Worrilow, K.; Huynh, H.; Bower, J.; Anderson, A.; Schillings, W.; Crain, J. PICSI™ vs. ICSI: Statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes in 240 in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients. Fertil. Steril. 2007, 88, S37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lauga, E.; Powers, T.R. The hydrodynamics of swimming microorganisms. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2009, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zalata, A.; Hafez, T.; Comhaire, F. Evaluation of the role of reactive oxygen species in male infertility. Hum. Reprod. 1995, 10, 1444–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Rappa, K.L.; Rodriguez, H.F.; Hakkarainen, G.C.; Anchan, R.M.; Mutter, G.L.; Asghar, W. Sperm processing for advanced reproductive technologies: Where are we today? Biotechnol. Adv. 2016, 34, 578–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wright, C.; Milne, S.; Leeson, H. Sperm DNA damage caused by oxidative stress: Modifiable clinical, lifestyle and nutritional factors in male infertility. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2014, 28, 684–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Pasqualotto, F.F.; Sharma, R.K.; Nelson, D.R.; Thomas, A.J.; Agarwal, A. Relationship between oxidative stress, semen characteristics, and clinical diagnosis in men undergoing infertility investigation. Fertil. Steril. 2000, 73, 459–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pelliccione, F.; Micillo, A.; Cordeschi, G.; D’Angeli, A.; Necozione, S.; Gandini, L.; Lenzi, A.; Francavilla, F.; Francavilla, S. Altered ultrastructure of mitochondrial membranes is strongly associated with unexplained asthenozoospermia. Fertil. Steril. 2011, 95, 641–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mundy, A.J.; Ryder, T.A.; Edmonds, D.K. Asthenozoospermia and the human sperm mid-piece. Hum. Reprod. 1995, 10, 116–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Amaral, A.; Lourenco, B.; Marques, M.; Ramalho-Santos, J. Mitochondria functionality and sperm quality. Reproduction 2013, 146, R163–R174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Simon, L.; Murphy, K.; Shamsi, M.B.; Liu, L.; Emery, B.; Aston, K.I.; Hotaling, J.; Carrell, D.T. Paternal influence of sperm DNA integrity on early embryonic development. Hum. Reprod. 2014, 29, 2402–2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Simon, L.; Brunborg, G.; Stevenson, M.; Lutton, D.; McManus, J.; Lewis, S.E. Clinical significance of sperm DNA damage in assisted reproduction outcome. Hum. Reprod. 2010, 25, 1594–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Benchaib, M.; Lornage, J.; Mazoyer, C.; Lejeune, H.; Salle, B.; Francois Guerin, J. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation as a prognostic indicator of assisted reproductive technology outcome. Fertil. Steril. 2007, 87, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Laverge, H.; De Sutter, P.; Van der Elst, J.; Dhont, M. A prospective, randomized study comparing day 2 and day 3 embryo transfer in human IVF. Hum. Reprod. 2001, 16, 476–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Gardner, D.K.; Lane, M.; Calderon, I.; Leeton, J. Environment of the preimplantation human embryo in vivo: Metabolite analysis of oviduct and uterine fluids and metabolism of cumulus cells. Fertil. Steril. 1996, 65, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Carvalho, B.R.; Barbosa, M.; Bonesi, H.; Gomes, D.B.S.; Cabral, I.O.; Barbosa, A.C.P.; Silva, A.A.; Iglesias, J.R.; Nakagawa, H.M. Embryo stage of development is not decisive for reproductive outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. JBRA Assist. Reprod. 2017, 21, 23–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Barnhart, K.; Dunsmoor-Su, R.; Coutifaris, C. Effect of endometriosis on in vitro fertilization. Fertil. Steril. 2002, 77, 1148–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Vandromme, J.; Chasse, E.; Lejeune, B.; Van Rysselberge, M.; Delvigne, A.; Leroy, F. Infertility: Hydrosalpinges in in-vitro fertilization: An unfavourable prognostic feature. Hum. Reprod. 1995, 10, 576–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chu, J.; Harb, H.M.; Gallos, I.D.; Dhillon, R.; Al-Rshoud, F.M.; Robinson, L.; Coomarasamy, A. Salpingostomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinx: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. 2015, 30, 1882–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Somigliana, E.; De Benedictis, S.; Vercellini, P.; Nicolosi, A.E.; Benaglia, L.; Scarduelli, C.; Ragni, G.; Fedele, L. Fibroids not encroaching the endometrial cavity and IVF success rate: A prospective study. Hum. Reprod. 2011, 26, 834–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Heytens, E.; Parrington, J.; Coward, K.; Young, C.; Lambrecht, S.; Yoon, S.-Y.; Fissore, R.; Hamer, R.; Deane, C.; Ruas, M.; et al. Reduced amounts and abnormal forms of phospholipase C zeta (PLC) in spermatozoa from infertile men. Hum. Reprod. 2009, 24, 2417–2428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Marchesi, D.E.; Feng, H.L. Sperm DNA Integrity From Sperm to Egg. J. Androl. 2007, 28, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Kim, S.J.; Kim, H.; Kim, T.H.; Jeong, J.; Lee, W.S.; Lyu, S.W. Effect of sperm selection using hyaluronan on fertilization and quality of cleavage-stage embryos in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles of couples with severe teratozoospermia. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2020, 36, 456–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kirkman-Brown, J.; Pavitt, S.; Khalaf, Y.; Lewis, S.; Hooper, R.; Bhattacharya, S.; Coomarasamy, A.; Sharma, V.; Brison, D.; Forbes, G.; et al. Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation. In Sperm Selection for Assisted Reproduction by Prior Hyaluronan Binding: The HABSelect RCT; NIHR Journals Library: Southampton, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  76. Yagci, A.; Murk, W.; Stronk, J.; Huszar, G. Spermatozoa Bound to Solid State Hyaluronic Acid Show Chromatin Structure With High DNA Chain Integrity: An Acridine Orange Fluorescence Study. J. Androl. 2010, 31, 566–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Dhawan, V.; Kumar, M.; Deka, D.; Malhotra, N.; Singh, N.; Dadhwal, V.; Dada, R. Paternal factors and embryonic development: Role in recurrent pregnancy loss. Andrologia 2019, 51, e13171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. McQueen, D.B.; Zhang, J.; Robins, J.C. Sperm DNA fragmentation and recurrent pregnancy loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2019, 112, 54–60.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tan, J.; Taskin, O.; Albert, A.; Bedaiwy, M.A. Association between sperm DNA fragmentation and idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2019, 38, 951–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Kirshenbaum, M.; Orvieto, R. Should We Offer In Vitro Fertilization to Couples with Unexplained Recurrent Pregnancy Loss? J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Sustar, K.; Rozen, G.; Agresta, F.; Polyakov, A. Use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in normospermic men may result in lower clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2019, 59, 706–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Erberelli, R.F.; Salgado, R.M.; Pereira, D.H.; Wolff, P. Hyaluronan-binding system for sperm selection enhances pregnancy rates in ICSI cycles associated with male factor infertility. JBRA Assist. Reprod. 2017, 21, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bradley, C.K.; McArthur, S.J.; Gee, A.J.; Weiss, K.A.; Schmidt, U.; Toogood, L. Intervention improves assisted conception intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes for patients with high levels of sperm DNA fragmentation: A retrospective analysis. Andrology 2016, 4, 903–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Canepa, P.; Casciano, I.; De Leo, C.; Massarotti, C.; Anserini, P.; Remorgida, V.; Scaruffi, P. A successful healthy childbirth and an ongoing evolutive pregnancy in a case of partial globozoospermia by hyaluronic acid sperm selection. Andrologia 2019, 51, e13178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Cairo Consensus Workshop, G. The current status and future of andrology: A consensus report from the Cairo workshop group. Andrology 2020, 8, 27–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Osman, A.; Alsomait, H.; Seshadri, S.; El-Toukhy, T.; Khalaf, Y. The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on live birth rate after IVF or ICSI: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2015, 30, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Santi, D.; Spaggiari, G.; Simoni, M. Sperm DNA fragmentation index as a promising predictive tool for male infertility diagnosis and treatment management—Meta-analyses. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2018, 37, 315–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Cissen, M.; Wely, M.V.; Scholten, I.; Mansell, S.; Bruin, J.P.; Mol, B.W.; Braat, D.; Repping, S.; Hamer, G. Measuring Sperm DNA Fragmentation and Clinical Outcomes of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Simon, L.; Zini, A.; Dyachenko, A.; Ciampi, A.; Carrell, D.T. A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of sperm DNA damage on in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome. Asian J. Androl. 2017, 19, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Marchlewska, K.; Filipiak, E.; Walczak-Jedrzejowska, R.; Oszukowska, E.; Sobkiewicz, S.; Wojt, M.; Chmiel, J.; Kula, K.; Slowikowska-Hilczer, J. Sperm DNA Fragmentation Index and Hyaluronan Binding Ability in Men from Infertile Couples and Men with Testicular Germ Cell Tumor. Biomed Res. Int. 2016, 2016, 7893961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Spencer, E.A.; Mahtani, K.R.; Goldacre, B.; Heneghan, C. Claims for fertility interventions: A systematic assessment of statements on UK fertility centre websites. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e013940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Harper, J.; Jackson, E.; Sermon, K.; Aitken, R.J.; Harbottle, S.; Mocanu, E.; Hardarson, T.; Mathur, R.; Viville, S.; Vail, A.; et al. Adjuncts in the IVF laboratory: Where is the evidence for ‘add-on’ interventions? Hum. Reprod. 2017, 32, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Humaidan, P.; Haahr, T. Bureaucratic overheating is a parasite hampering modern clinical research—A viewpoint from the ‘belly of the beast’. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2019, 38, 487–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Dyer, S.; Chambers, G.M.; de Mouzon, J.; Nygren, K.G.; Zegers-Hochschild, F.; Mansour, R.; Ishihara, O.; Banker, M.; Adamson, G.D. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: Assisted Reproductive Technology 2008, 2009 and 2010. Hum. Reprod. 2016, 31, 1588–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Evers, J.L. Santa Claus in the fertility clinic. Hum. Reprod. 2016, 31, 1381–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Li, Z.; Wang, A.Y.; Bowman, M.; Hammarberg, K.; Farquhar, C.; Johnson, L.; Safi, N.; A Sullivan, E. ICSI does not increase the cumulative live birth rate in non-male factor infertility. Hum. Reprod. 2018, 33, 1322–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Barratt, C.L.R.; Björndahl, L.; De Jonge, C.J.; Lamb, D.J.; Osorio Martini, F.; McLachlan, R.; Oates, R.D.; Van Der Poel, S.; St John, B.; Sigman, M.; et al. The diagnosis of male infertility: An analysis of the evidence to support the development of global WHO guidance—Challenges and future research opportunities. Hum. Reprod. Update 2017, 23, 660–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. West, R.; Coomarasamy, A.; Frew, L.; Hutton, R.; Kirkman-Brown, J.; Lawlor, M.; Lewis, S.; Partanen, R.; Payne-Dwyer, A.; Román-Montañana, C.; et al. Sperm selection with hyaluronic acid improved live birth outcomes among older couples and was connected to sperm DNA quality, potentially affecting all treatment outcomes. Hum. Reprod. 2022, 37, 1106–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dna 02 00011 g001 550
Figure 1. The clinical use of hyaluronic acid binding (HAB)-sperm selection, depicting the introduction of sperm to HA-coated dishes (A,B) and the binding of mature sperm to HA (C). The bound sperm are selected for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).
Figure 1. The clinical use of hyaluronic acid binding (HAB)-sperm selection, depicting the introduction of sperm to HA-coated dishes (A,B) and the binding of mature sperm to HA (C). The bound sperm are selected for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).
Dna 02 00011 g001
Dna 02 00011 g002 550
Figure 2. A PRISMA diagram demonstrating the study selection process for study question 1. This flowchart outlines the search and selection process employed in study question 1—Is sperm HAB score prior to insemination predictive of clinical outcomes?
Figure 2. A PRISMA diagram demonstrating the study selection process for study question 1. This flowchart outlines the search and selection process employed in study question 1—Is sperm HAB score prior to insemination predictive of clinical outcomes?
Dna 02 00011 g002
Dna 02 00011 g003 550
Figure 3. A summary of the authors’ judgement on quality and bias assessment results of the 7 reviewed studies for study question 1—Is sperm HAB score prior to insemination predictive of clinical outcomes? Green: low risk of bias/high quality, Yellow: undetermined risk of bias/quality, Red: high risk of bias/low quality, White: assessment does not apply. Studies were considered at low risk of biases related to selection and performance given that no intervention was involved in the study groups, and procedures were of a diagnostic nature without interfering with patient treatment. All studies were considered of undetermined quality given that exclusion criteria were either ill-defined or included pathologies which may impact later outcomes, e.g., endometriosis. [26,31,44,45,46,47,48].
Figure 3. A summary of the authors’ judgement on quality and bias assessment results of the 7 reviewed studies for study question 1—Is sperm HAB score prior to insemination predictive of clinical outcomes? Green: low risk of bias/high quality, Yellow: undetermined risk of bias/quality, Red: high risk of bias/low quality, White: assessment does not apply. Studies were considered at low risk of biases related to selection and performance given that no intervention was involved in the study groups, and procedures were of a diagnostic nature without interfering with patient treatment. All studies were considered of undetermined quality given that exclusion criteria were either ill-defined or included pathologies which may impact later outcomes, e.g., endometriosis. [26,31,44,45,46,47,48].
Dna 02 00011 g003
Dna 02 00011 g004 550
Figure 4. A PRISMA diagram demonstrating the study selection process for study question 2—Does sperm selection by HAB improve the rate of pregnancy loss in IVF or ICSI cycles?
Figure 4. A PRISMA diagram demonstrating the study selection process for study question 2—Does sperm selection by HAB improve the rate of pregnancy loss in IVF or ICSI cycles?
Dna 02 00011 g004
Dna 02 00011 g005 550
Figure 5. A summary of the authors’ judgement on quality and bias assessment results on the 5 studies included in study question 2—Does sperm selection by HAB reduce the rate of pregnancy loss in IVF or ICSI cycles? Green: low risk of bias/high quality, Yellow: undetermined risk of bias/quality, Red: high risk of bias/low quality, White: assessment does not apply. [26,28,31,34,49,50].
Figure 5. A summary of the authors’ judgement on quality and bias assessment results on the 5 studies included in study question 2—Does sperm selection by HAB reduce the rate of pregnancy loss in IVF or ICSI cycles? Green: low risk of bias/high quality, Yellow: undetermined risk of bias/quality, Red: high risk of bias/low quality, White: assessment does not apply. [26,28,31,34,49,50].
Dna 02 00011 g005
Dna 02 00011 g006 550
Figure 6. A PRISMA diagram summarising the literature search and selection process for study question 3—Does sperm selection by HAB improve clinical outcomes for all infertility patients?
Figure 6. A PRISMA diagram summarising the literature search and selection process for study question 3—Does sperm selection by HAB improve clinical outcomes for all infertility patients?
Dna 02 00011 g006
Dna 02 00011 g007 550
Figure 7. A summary of the authors’ judgement on quality and bias assessment results for studies included in study question 3—Does sperm selection by HAB improve clinical outcomes for all infertility patients? Green: low risk of bias/high quality, Yellow: undetermined risk of bias/quality, Red: high risk of bias/low quality, White: assessment does not apply. [26,28,31,34,49,50,51].
Figure 7. A summary of the authors’ judgement on quality and bias assessment results for studies included in study question 3—Does sperm selection by HAB improve clinical outcomes for all infertility patients? Green: low risk of bias/high quality, Yellow: undetermined risk of bias/quality, Red: high risk of bias/low quality, White: assessment does not apply. [26,28,31,34,49,50,51].
Dna 02 00011 g007
Table
Table 1. A table summarising the studies included in this review for the assessment of the predictive value of sperm-HA binding: study question 1—Is sperm HAB score prior to insemination predictive of clinical outcomes? * Indicates a significant result (p < 0.05). FR: fertilisation rate; CPR: clinical pregnancy rate; LBR: live birth rate; PLR: pregnancy loss rate; IR: implantation rate; BPR: biochemical pregnancy rate; IVF: in vitro fertilisation.
Table 1. A table summarising the studies included in this review for the assessment of the predictive value of sperm-HA binding: study question 1—Is sperm HAB score prior to insemination predictive of clinical outcomes? * Indicates a significant result (p < 0.05). FR: fertilisation rate; CPR: clinical pregnancy rate; LBR: live birth rate; PLR: pregnancy loss rate; IR: implantation rate; BPR: biochemical pregnancy rate; IVF: in vitro fertilisation.
AuthorInterventionStudy TypeIndicationReported
Outcomes		Results
Esterhuizen, Franken et al. (2015) [44]ICSIProspective,
Controlled		Mild–Moderate
endometriosis		HAB score and FR, BPR, and CPRR = 0.60 (p = 0.0001 *), R = 0.24 (p = 0.02 *), R = 0.14 (p = 0.14)
Kovacs, Kovats et al. (2011) [45]IVF/ICSIProspective,
Blinded
Randomised
Controlled		Unexplained infertility
Female age <40
Normozoospermic patients		HAB score and FRNo significant correlation (data not presented)
Miller et al. (2019) [31]PICSIProspective, blinded, randomised, controlledUnexplained infertility
Female age 18–38
Patients able to produce fresh ejaculate on the day of OR		HAB score, FR, CPR, PLR, LBRNo significant correlations reported (data not presented)
Mokánszki, Tóthné et al. (2014) [46]PICSIProspective
Controlled
Non-randomised (treatment allocation based on HAB score)		Female age <40 years
Sperm concentration >10,000/mL on the day of OR		FR64.5% vs. 56.5% (p > 0.05)
HAB score >60%:73.36% vs. 60.1% (p < 0.05 *)
HAB score ≤60%:55.7% vs. 52.8% (p > 0.05)
IR21.7% vs. 17.12% (p > 0.05)
HAB score >60%:20.8% vs. 21.47% (p > 0.05)
HAB score ≤60%:22.6% vs. 12.76% (p < 0.05 *)
CPR40.46% vs. 29.22% (p < 0.05 *)
HAB score >60%:41.67% vs. 31.85% (p < 0.05 *)
HAB score ≤60%:39.3% vs. 26.6% (p < 0.05 *)
PLR2% vs. 5.14% (p < 0.05 *)
HAB score >60%:2.2% vs. 8.37% (p < 0.05 *)
HAB score ≤60%:1.99% vs. 1.9% (p > 0.05)
LBR0.45% vs. 0.42% (p > 0.05)
HAB score >60%:0.42% vs. 0.58% (p > 0.05)
HAB score ≤60%:0.49% vs. 0.27% (p < 0.05 *)
Pregl Breznik, Kovačič et al. (2013) [47]IVF/ICSIProspectiveMild male factor
Unexplained infertility
Female factor infertility		HAB score and FRFR <50%, HAB 85.1% vs. FR >50%, HAB 93% (p = 0.019 *)
Said and Land (2011) [48] Systematic Review HAB score, FR, CPR,No significant correlations reported
Worrilow, Eid et al. (2013) [26]PICSIProspective,
Double blinded, randomised, controlled		Female age <40
HAB score >2%
Sperm concentration >10,000/mL		IR33.5% vs. 32.2% (p > 0.05)
HAB score >65%:37.9% vs. 34.8% (p > 0.05)
HAB score ≤65%:37.4% vs. 30.7% (p > 0.05)
47.3% vs. 47.8% (p > 0.05)
CPRHAB score >65%:46.2% vs. 51.1% (p > 0.05)
HAB score ≤65%:50.8% vs. 37.9% (p > 0.05)
PLR (HAB score unwashed)4.3% vs. 10% (p > 0.05)
PLR (HAB score washed)HAB score >65%:5.3% vs. 3.5% (p > 0.05)
HAB score ≤65%–3.3% vs. 15.1% (p = 0.021 *)
4.3% vs. 10% (p > 0.05)
HAB score ≤65%:0% vs. 18.5% (p = 0.016 *)
Table
Table 2. A table summarising the studies included in this review for study question 2—Does sperm selection by HAB improve the rate of pregnancy loss in IVF or ICSI cycles? * Indicates a significant result (p < 0.05). MACS—magnetic activated cell sorting. OR: Odds Ratio; RR: Risk Ratios.
Table 2. A table summarising the studies included in this review for study question 2—Does sperm selection by HAB improve the rate of pregnancy loss in IVF or ICSI cycles? * Indicates a significant result (p < 0.05). MACS—magnetic activated cell sorting. OR: Odds Ratio; RR: Risk Ratios.
AuthorInterventionControlStudy TypeIndicationReported
Outcomes		Results
Lepine, McDowell et al. (2019) [34]PICSIICSISystematic ReviewUnexplained InfertilityMiscarriage per woman randomly assigned43 of 1000 vs. 70 of 1000 (RR = 0.61)
Miscarriage per Clinical Pregnancy122 per 1000 vs. 197 per 1000 (RR = 0.62)
Miller et al. (2019) [31]PICSIICSIProspective, blinded, randomised, controlledUnexplained infertility
Female age 18-38
Patients able to produce fresh ejaculate on the day of OR		Miscarriage per Clinical Pregnancy4.3% vs. 7% (OR = 0.61, p = 0.003)
Parmegiani, Cognigni et al. (2010) [28]SpermSlowICSIProspective, randomised, controlledNo female age range reported Motility >5%, Sperm concentration >1 million/mLMiscarriage per Clinical Pregnancy18.2% vs. 19.3% (p > 0.05)
Troya and Zorrilla (2015) [49]PICSIMACS and ICSIProspective,
Randomised,
Controlled		Unexplained infertility
Normozoospermic
Female age >35		Miscarriage per Clinical Pregnancy5.3% vs. 5.5% and 13.3% (p > 0.05)
Worrilow, Eid et al. (2013) [26]PICSIICSIProspective,
Double blinded, randomised, controlled		Female age <40
HAB score >2%
Sperm concentration >10,000/mL		Miscarriage per Clinical Pregnancy4.3% vs. 10 % (p > 0.05)
Miscarriage per Clinical Pregnancy, Final HAB score >65%5.9% vs. 7.8% (p > 0.05)
Miscarriage per Clinical Pregnancy, Final HAB score ≤65%0% vs. 18.5% (p = 0.016 *)
Majumdar and Majumdar (2013) [50]PICSIICSIProspective, randomised, controlledUnexplained infertility, female patients <43, >3 oocytes collectedMiscarriage per clinical pregnancy12% vs. 25% (p > 0.05)
Table
Table 3. A table summarising the studies included in this review for study question 3, involving the assessment of the effect of HAB-sperm selection on clinical outcomes in the unexplained fertility population. EQR: rate of top-quality embryo formation; EDR: embryo development rate.
Table 3. A table summarising the studies included in this review for study question 3, involving the assessment of the effect of HAB-sperm selection on clinical outcomes in the unexplained fertility population. EQR: rate of top-quality embryo formation; EDR: embryo development rate.
AuthorInterventionControlStudy TypeIndicationReported OutcomesResults
Beck-Fruchter, Shalev et al. (2016) [51]HA-ICSI Systematic ReviewUnexplained InfertilityFR, CPRNo significant difference
Cleavage rateRR = 0.94 in favour of Control (p = 0.0001)
EQR35–36% vs. 22–24% (p < 0.05)
RR = 1.53 in favour of HA-ICSI (p < 0.0001)
IRRR 1.34 in favour of HA-ICSI (p = 0.24)
PLRNo significant difference (data not presented)
LBRNo significant difference (data not presented)
Miller et al. (2019) [31]PICSI Prospective, blinded, randomised, controlledUnexplained infertility
Female age 18–38
Patients able to produce fresh ejaculate on the day of OR		FR, CPR, LBR
PLR		No significant difference (data not presented)
4.3% vs. 7.0% (p = 0.003)
Worrilow, Eid et al. (2013) [26]PICSI Prospective,
Double blinded, randomised, controlled		Female age <40
HABScore >2%
Sperm concentration >10,000/mL on the day of OR		IR33.5% vs. 32.2% (p > 0.05)
CPR47.3% vs. 47.8%
PLR4.3% vs. 10% (p > 0.05)
Lepine, McDowell et al. (2019) [34]PICSI Systematic Review LBR per patientRR = 1.09 in favour of HA-ICSI (p > 0.05)
RR = 0.62 in favour of HA-ICSI (p > 0.05)
PLR per Clinical Pregnancy
CPR per patient		No significant difference (data not presented)
Parmegiani, Cognigni et al. (2010) [28]SpermSlow Prospective, randomised, controlledNo female age range reported Motility >5%, Sperm concentration >1 million/mL on the day of ORFR, CPR, PLR
EDR		No significant differences (data not presented)
95.0% vs. 84.0% (p = 0.001)
Troya and Zorrilla (2015) [49]PICSIICSI and MACSProspective, randomised, controlledEndometriosis Excluded
Normozoospermic patients undergoing ICSI		FR70.15% vs. 78.97% and 80.28% (p = 0.036)
CLR40.4% vs. 27.3% and 58.1% (p = 0.019)
PLR per Clinical Pregnancy5.3% vs. 13.3% and 5.5% (p > 0.05)
Majumdar and Majumdar (2013) [50]PICSIICSIProspective, randomised, controlledFemale patient <43 years
Unexplained infertility		Pregnancy
FR, CPR, PLR, LBR		No significant difference reported
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ní Dhuifin, R.; Griffin, D.K.; Moodley, T. The Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid Binding (HAB) in the Treatment of Male Infertility: A Systematic Review of the Literature. DNA 2022, 2, 149-171. https://doi.org/10.3390/dna2030011

AMA Style

Ní Dhuifin R, Griffin DK, Moodley T. The Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid Binding (HAB) in the Treatment of Male Infertility: A Systematic Review of the Literature. DNA. 2022; 2(3):149-171. https://doi.org/10.3390/dna2030011

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ní Dhuifin, Róisín, Darren K. Griffin, and Therishnee Moodley. 2022. "The Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid Binding (HAB) in the Treatment of Male Infertility: A Systematic Review of the Literature" DNA 2, no. 3: 149-171. https://doi.org/10.3390/dna2030011

APA Style

Ní Dhuifin, R., Griffin, D. K., & Moodley, T. (2022). The Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid Binding (HAB) in the Treatment of Male Infertility: A Systematic Review of the Literature. DNA, 2(3), 149-171. https://doi.org/10.3390/dna2030011

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop