The lack of evidence behind over-the-counter antioxidant supplements for male fertility patients: a scoping review.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the evidence for over-the-counter antioxidant supplements for male infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: Less than half of over-the-counter antioxidant supplements for male fertility patients have been tested in a clinical trial, and the available clinical trials are generally of poor quality. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The prevalence of male infertility is rising and, with this, the market for supplements claiming to improve male fertility is expanding. Up to now, there is limited data on the evidence for these over-the-counter supplements. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Amazon, Google Shopping and other relevant shopping websites were searched on 24 June 2022 with the following terms: 'supplements', 'antioxidants', 'vitamins', AND 'male fertility', 'male infertility', 'male subfertility', 'fertility men', 'fertility man'. All supplements with a description of ingredients in English, Dutch, French, Spanish, or German were included. Subsequently, Pubmed and Google Scholar were searched for studies that included the supplements. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Inclusion criteria were supplements with antioxidant properties, of which the main purpose was to improve male fertility. Included supplements must be available without a doctor's prescription. Supplements containing plant extracts were excluded, as well as supplements of which the content or dosage was not clear. The ingredients, dosage, price and health claims of the supplements were recorded. We assessed whether substances in the supplements exceeded the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) or tolerable upper intake level (UL). All clinical trials and animal studies investigating included supplements were selected for this review. Clinical trials were assessed for risk of bias with a risk of bias tool appropriate for the study design. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 34 eligible antioxidant supplements found, containing 48 different active substances. The average price per 30 days was 53.10 US dollars. Most of the supplements (27/34, 79%) contained substances in a dosage exceeding the recommended daily allowance (RDA). All manufacturers of the supplements made health claims related to the improvement of sperm quality or male fertility. For 13 of the 34 supplements (38%), published clinical trials were available, and for one supplement, only an animal study was found. The overall quality of the included studies was poor. Only two supplements were tested in a good quality clinical trial. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: As a consequence of searching shopping websites, a comprehensive search strategy could not be formulated. Most supplements were excluded because they contained plant extracts or because supplement information was not available (in an appropriate language). WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first review that gives an insight into the market of male fertility supplements as available to infertility patients and other men seeking to improve their fertility. Earlier reviews have focused only on supplements with published clinical trials. However, we show that more than half of the supplements have not been tested in a clinical trial. To our knowledge, this review is the first to assess the dosage of supplements in relation to the RDA. In agreement with the literature, we found that the evidence on male fertility supplements is generally of poor quality. This review should urge pharmaceutical companies to evaluate their products in randomized controlled trials in order to provide people with substantiated information. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The research position of W.R.d.L. is funded by an unrestricted grant from Goodlife Pharma. W.R.d.L., K.F., and J.P.d.B. are in the research team of a clinical trial on Impryl®, one of the supplements included in this review. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Antioxidants for male subfertility.

BACKGROUND: The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, and two trial registers were searched on 15 February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included men with idiopathic infertility and normal semen parameters or fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 90 studies with a total population of 10,303 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Investigators compared and combined 20 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' certainty: the main limitation was that out of the 67 included studies in the meta-analysis only 20 studies reported clinical pregnancy, and of those 12 reported on live birth. The evidence is current up to February 2021. Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.91, P = 0.02, 12 RCTs, 1283 men, I2 = 44%, very low-certainty evidence). Results in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate suggest that if the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 16%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 17% and 27%. However, this result was based on only 246 live births from 1283 couples in 12 small or medium-sized studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75, 827 men, 8 RCTs, P = 0.27, I2 = 32%). Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47, P < 0.00001, 20 RCTs, 1706 men, I2 = 3%, low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. This suggests that, in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, if the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 15%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 20% and 30%. This result was based on 327 clinical pregnancies from 1706 couples in 20 small studies. Adverse events Miscarriage: only six studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. No evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate was found between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.83, P = 0.27, 6 RCTs, 664 men, I2 = 35%, very low-certainty evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile couples, with male factor infertility, with an expected miscarriage rate of 5%, the risk of miscarriage following the use of an antioxidant would be between 4% and 13%. Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal discomfort when compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.99, P = 0.002, 16 RCTs, 1355 men, I2 = 40%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal discomfort following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 7%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 46 out of 1355 men in 16 small or medium-sized studies, and the certainty of the evidence was rated low and heterogeneity was high. We were unable to draw conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, there is very low-certainty evidence from 12 small or medium-sized randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-certainty evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal discomfort, based on very low-certainty evidence. Subfertile couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials studying infertile men and reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

Regenerative medicine as a therapeutic option for fecal incontinence: a systematic review of preclinical and clinical studies.

BACKGROUND: Fecal incontinence is the uncontrollable loss of stool and has a prevalence of around 7-15%. This condition has serious implications for patients' quality of life. Current treatment options show unsatisfactory results. A novel treatment option is therefore needed. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to perform a quality assessment and to give a critical overview of the current research available on regenerative medicine as a treatment for fecal incontinence. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic search strategy was applied in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cinahl from inception until March of 2018. Studies were found relevant when the animals or patients in the studied group had objectively determined or induced fecal incontinence, and the intervention must have used any kind of cells, stem cells, or biocompatible material, with or without the use of trophic factors. Studies were screened on title and consecutively on abstract for relevance by 2 independent investigators. The risk of bias of preclinical studies was assessed using the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation risk of bias tool for animal studies, and for clinical studies the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials was used. RESULTS: In all, 34 preclinical studies and 5 clinical studies were included. Animal species, type of anal sphincter injury, intervention, and outcome parameters were heterogenous. Therefore, a meta-analysis could not be performed. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was high. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of regenerative medicine to treat fecal incontinence could not be determined due to the high risk of bias and heterogenicity of the available preclinical and clinical studies. The findings of this systematic review may result in improved study design of future studies, which could help the translation of regenerative medicine to the clinic as an alternative to current treatments for fecal incontinence.