ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The widespread interest in male reproductive health (MRH), fueled by emerging evidence, such as the global decline in sperm counts, has intensified concerns about the status of MRH. Consequently, there is a pressing requirement for a strategic, systematic approach to identifying critical questions, collecting pertinent information, and utilizing these data to develop evidence-based strategies. The methods for addressing these questions and the pathways toward their answers will inevitably vary based on the variations in cultural, geopolitical, and health-related contexts. To address these issues, a conjoint ESHRE and Male Reproductive Health Initiative (MRHI) Campus workshop was convened. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The three objectives were: first, to assess the current state of MRH around the world; second, to identify some of the key gaps in knowledge; and, third, to examine how MRH stakeholders can collaboratively generate intelligent and effective paths forward. SEARCH METHODS: Each expert reviewed and summarized the current literature that was subsequently used to provide a comprehensive overview of challenges related to MRH. OUTCOMES: This narrative report is an overview of the data, opinions, and arguments presented during the workshop. A number of outcomes are presented and can be summarized by the following overarching themes: MRH is a serious global issue and there is a plethora of gaps in our understanding; there is a need for widespread international collaborative networks to undertake multidisciplinary research into fundamental issues, such as lifestyle/environmental exposure studies, and high-quality clinical trials; and there is an urgent requirement for effective strategies to educate young people and the general public to safeguard and improve MRH across diverse population demographics and resources. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a workshop where worldwide leading experts from a wide range of disciplines presented and discussed the evidence regarding challenges related to MRH. While each expert summarized the current literature and placed it in context, the data in a number of areas are limited and/or sparse. Equally, important areas for consideration may have been missed. Moreover, there are clear gaps in our knowledge base, which makes some conclusions necessarily speculative and warranting of further study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Poor MRH is a global issue that suffers from low awareness among the public, patients, and heathcare professionals. Addressing this will require a coordinated multidisciplinary approach. Addressing the significant number of knowledge gaps will require policy makers prioritizing MRH and its funding. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The authors would like to extend their gratitude to ESHRE for providing financial support for the Budapest Campus Workshop, as well as to Microptic S.L. (Barcelona) for kindly sponsoring the workshop. P.B. is the Director of the not-for-profit organization Global Action on Men's Health and receives fees and expenses for his work, (which includes the preparation of this manuscript). Conflicts of interest: C.J.D.J., C.L.R.B., R.A.A., P.B., M.P.C., M.L.E., N.G., N.J., C.K., AAP, M.K.O., S.R.-H., M.H.V.-L.: ESHRE Campus Workshop 2022 (Travel support-personal). C.J.D.J.: Cambridge University Press (book royalties-personal). ESHRE Annual Meeting 2022 and Yale University Panel Meeting 2023 (Travel support-personal). C.L.R.B.: Ferring and IBSA (Lecture), RBMO editor (Honorarium to support travel, etc.), ExSeed and ExScentia (University of Dundee), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (for research on contraception). M.P.C.: Previously received funding from pharmaceutical companies for health economic research. The funding was not in relation to this work and had no bearing on the contents of this work. No funding from other sources has been provided in relation to this work (funding was provided to his company Global Market Access Solutions). M.L.E.: Advisor to Ro, Doveras, Next, Hannah, Sandstone. C.K.: European Academy of Andrology (Past president UNPAID), S.K.: CEO of His Turn, a male fertility Diagnostic and Therapeutic company (No payments or profits to date). R.I.M.: www.healthymale.org.au (Australian Government funded not for profit in men's health sector (Employed as Medical Director 0.2 FET), Monash IVF Pty Ltd (Equity holder)). N.J.: Merck (consulting fees), Gedeon Richter (honoraria). S.R.-H.: ESHRE (Travel reimbursements). C.N.: LLC (Nursing educator); COMMIT (Core Outcomes Measures for Infertility Trials) Advisor, meeting attendee, and co-author; COMMA (Core Outcomes in Menopause) Meeting attendee, and co-author; International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Delegate Letters and Sciences; ReproNovo, Advisory board; American Board of Urology Examiner; American Urological Association Journal subsection editor, committee member, guidelines co-author Ferring Scientific trial NexHand Chief Technology Officer, stock ownership Posterity Health Board member, stock ownership. A.P.: Economic and Social Research Council (A collaborator on research grant number ES/W001381/1). Member of an advisory committee for Merck Serono (November 2022), Member of an advisory board for Exceed Health, Speaker fees for educational events organized by Mealis Group; Chairman of the Cryos External Scientific Advisory Committee: All fees associated with this are paid to his former employer The University of Sheffield. Trustee of the Progress Educational Trust (Unpaid). M.K.O.: National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council (Funding for research of the topic of male fertility), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Funding aimed at the development of male gamete-based contraception), Medical Research Future Fund (Funding aimed at defining the long-term consequences of male infertility). M.H.V.-L.: Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH)/Human Reproduction Programme (HRP) Research Project Panel RP2/WHO Review Member; MRHI (Core Group Member), COMMIT (member), EGOI (Member); Human Reproduction (Associate Editor), Fertility and Sterility (Editor), AndroLATAM (Founder and Coordinator).
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of histological dating to discriminate between women of fertile and infertile couples. The utility of histological dating of endometrium in the evaluation of infertile couples is uncertain. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter study, with subjects randomly assigned to biopsy timing. Criterion standard for infertility was 12 months of unprotected, regular intercourse without conception and for fertility at least one live birth within 2 years. SETTING: University-based infertility practices. PATIENT(S): Volunteer subjects (847) recruited at 12 clinical sites participating in the National Institutes of Health-funded Reproductive Medicine Network. Inclusion criteria included ages 20-39 years, regular menstrual cycles, and no hormonal treatment or contraceptive use for 1 month before the study. Fertile controls were excluded if they had a history of infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, or recent breastfeeding. INTERVENTION(S): Subjects underwent daily urinary LH testing. After detection of the LH surge, subjects were randomized to biopsy in the mid (days 21-22) or the late (days 26-27) luteal phase. Pathologists at each site estimated the cycle day based on standard criteria. For the primary analysis, an out-of-phase biopsy was defined as a greater than 2-day delay in the histological maturation of the endometrium. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The proportion of out-of-phase biopsies in fertile and infertile women was compared using logistic regression models with age at randomization as a covariate. Comparisons were also made between fertile vs. infertile at the midluteal or late luteal phase time points. RESULT(S): Biopsies were evaluated (301 mid and 318 late; N = 619). Out-of-phase biopsy results poorly discriminated between women from fertile and infertile couples in either the midluteal (fertile: 49.4%, infertile: 43.2%) or late luteal phase (fertile: 35.3%, infertile 23.0%). Results did not substantially differ using alternative definitions of "out-of-phase" or standardized cycle day. CONCLUSION(S): Histological dating of the endometrium does not discriminate between women of fertile and infertile couples and should not be used in the routine evaluation of infertility.
