STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The guideline development group formulated 77 recommendations answering 18 key questions on investigations and treatments for RPL, and on how care should be organized. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A previous guideline for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage was published in 2006 and is in need of an update. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 31 March 2017 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The guideline provides 38 recommendations on risk factors, prevention and investigations in couples with RPL, and 39 recommendations on treatments. These include 60 evidence-based recommendations – of which 31 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional – and 17 good practice points. The evidence supporting investigations and treatment of couples with RPL is limited and of moderate quality. Of the evidence-based recommendations, only 10 (16.3%) were supported by moderate quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (35 recommendations: 57.4%), or very low quality evidence (16 recommendations: 26.2%). There were no recommendations based on high quality evidence. Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Several investigations and treatments are offered to couples with RPL, but most of them are not well studied. For most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. One of the most important consequences of the limited evidence is the absence of evidence for a definition of RPL. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. J.E. reports position funding from CARE Fertility. S.L. reports position funding from SpermComet Ltd. S.M. reports research grants, consulting and speaker’s fees from GSK, BMS/Pfizer, Sanquin, Aspen, Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. S.Q. reports speaker’s fees from Ferring. The other authors report no conflicts of interest. ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Diabetes is associated with increased sperm nuclear and mtDNA damage that may impair the reproductive capability of these men.

None.

DNA damage in the male germ line has been associated with poor semen quality, low fertilization rates, impaired preimplantation development, increased abortion and an elevated incidence of disease in the offspring, including childhood cancer. The causes of this DNA damage are still uncertain but the major candidates are oxidative stress and aberrant apoptosis. The weight of evidence currently favours the former and, in keeping with this conclusion, positive results have been reported for antioxidant therapy both in vivo and in vitro. Resolving the causes of DNA damage in the male germ line will be essential if we are to prevent the generation of genetically damaged human embryos, particularly in the context of assisted conception therapy.

Sperm morphology, motility, mitochondrial activities and viability are equally susceptible to cryopreservation-induced damage. R123 intensity is a novel and robust indicator of mitochondrial function before and after such trauma.

No abstract

Baseline DNA damage in spermatozoa from fertile and infertile men was compared using a modified alkali single cell gel electrophoresis (comet) assay. Semen from normozoospermic fertile, normozoospermic infertile and asthenozoospermic infertile (World Health Organization criteria, 1992) samples were studied. No significant difference was observed in levels of baseline damage between the three groups. A median value for baseline damage of approximately 20% (80% head DNA) was obtained in all samples. Irradiation with X-rays (5-30 Gy) produced no additional damage in fertile samples when median values were examined. However, irradiation with 30 Gy X-rays produced significant damage in both infertile groups. Hydrogen peroxide (40 microM) treatment induced significant damage in the asthenozoospermic group, whereas 100 microM H2O2 was required to cause significant damage in the normozoospermic fertile and infertile samples. Within the fertile population a subgroup in which percentage head DNA was greater than 80% was observed in both treated and untreated specimens. This subgroup significantly decreased with treatment in both infertile groups. We conclude that the asthenozoospermic infertile group is more susceptible to damage than the normozoospermic infertile group, which in turn is more susceptible than the fertile group. The fertile group contains a resistant subpopulation of spermatozoa with relatively intact DNA.

Lewis, S.E.M. et al. (2013). The impact of sperm DNA damage in assisted conception and beyond: recent advances in diagnosis and treatment. Astract:Sperm DNA damage is a useful biomarker for male infertility diagnosis and prediction of assisted reproduction outcomes. It is associated with reduced fertilization rates, embryo quality and pregnancy rates, and higher rates of spontaneous miscarriage and childhood diseases. This review provides a synopsis of the most recent studies from each of the authors, all of whom have major track records in the field of sperm DNA damage in the clinical setting. It explores current laboratory tests and the accumulating body of knowledge concerning the relationship between sperm DNA damage and clinical outcomes. The paper proceeds to discuss the strengths, weaknesses and clinical applicability of current sperm DNA tests. Next, the biological significance of DNA damage in the male germ line is considered. Finally, as sperm DNA damage is often the result of oxidative stress in the male reproductive tract, the potential contribution of antioxidant therapy in the clinical management of this condition is discussed. DNA damage in human spermatozoa is an important attribute of semen quality. It should be part of the clinical work up and properly controlled trials addressing the effectiveness of antioxidant therapy should be undertaken as a matter of urgency. IntroductionMale factor infertility is implicated in more than 40% of couples presenting for assisted reproduction treatment. Conventional semen analysis continues to be the only routine test to diagnose this condition even though it is known that such descriptive assessments cannot discriminate between the spermatozoa of fertile and infertile men (Guzick et al., 2001). The shifting values for normality (all 'normal' values now lower) in the fifth edition of the WHO manual (World Health Organization, 2010) compared with the previous WHO editions may result in even less men being classified as infertile (Murray et al., 2012).