Ruth A. Howie

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set be developed through a global consensus to standardize outcome selection, collection, comparison, and reporting in future male infertility trials? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum dataset, known as a ‘core outcome set’, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential interventions for male infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Numerous factors, including a failure to consider the perspectives of men with lived experiences of infertility or their partners when developing and conducting RCTs can limit their clinical utility. Selection of outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes based on statistical analysis make the results of infertility research challenging to interpret, compare, and implement. For male infertility, this is further compounded by there being potentially three participants, the male, their female partner, and any offspring born, all with outcomes to be reported. This has led to significant heterogeneity in trial design and reporting. While a core outcome set for general infertility trials has been developed, there is no such outcome set for male infertility trials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A two-round Delphi survey (334 participants from 39 countries) and consensus development workshops (44 participants from 21 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers, and men and women with infertility were brought together in a transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set for male infertility trials has been developed by the inclusion of specific male-factor outcomes in addition to the general infertility core outcome set. These outcomes include assessment of semen using the World Health Organization recommendations for semen analysis; viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancies); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Although not a requirement as part of the core outcome set, other outcomes were identified as potentially useful in certain study settings. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods in this work, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes, which are inconsistently reported at present. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set for male infertility trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was funded by The Urology Foundation, Small Project Fund awarded to Michael P Rimmer at the University of Edinburgh, UK. RTM was supported by a United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) Future Leaders Fellowship (MR/Y011783/1). C.L.R.B. is the co-editor in chief of Human Reproduction and recipient of a BMGF grant and received consultancy fees from Exscentia and Exceed sperm testing, paid to the University of Dundee and speaking fees or honoraria paid personally by Ferring, Copper Surgical and RBMO. R.P.B. receives royalties from Flow diagnósticos. M.L.E. is an advisor to the companies Hannah, Illumicell, Next, Legacy, Doveras, Vseat and received a consultancy fee for this. B.W.M. is a paid consultant for Norgine and Organon and has received research funding from Ferring and Merck, he also receives consultancy and travel support from Merck. R.R.H. received royalties from Elsevier for a book, consultancy fees from Glyciome, and presentation fees from GryNumber Health and Aytu Bioscience. Attendance at Fertility 2020 and Roadshow South Africa by Ralf Henkel was funded by LogixX Pharma Ltd. R.R.H. is also Editor in Chief of Andrologia and has been an employee of LogixX Pharma Ltd. since 2020. M.S.K. has been an associate editor with Human Reproduction Open. K.Mc.E. received funding to attend Fertility 2025 by the British Fertility Society and is the Chair of the British Fertility Society. He is a member of the HFEA’s Scientific and Clinical Advances Advisory Committee and a Committee Member of the NICE Fertility Problems Guideline Group. M.H.V.L. receives consultation fees for the WHO Manual Spanish translation, and travel expenses for the ESHRE MRHI meeting in Budapest. She is a member of the editorial board for Fertility & Sterility, F&S Science, Human Reproduction, and Frontiers in Endocrinology. She is also a panel member of the World Health Organization (WHO) Human Reproduction Programme (HRP) Research Project Review Panel. R.S.M. is a member of the NICE Guideline Committee on Fertility and former chair of the British Fertility Society. A. Perheentupa receives an honoraria for lecturing from Merck for the Tackling Infertility manifest, Gedeon Richter & Ferring. A. Perheentupa declares lecture honoraria from Merck, Gideon Richter, and Ferring; and payment from Merck for the Tackling Infertility manifesto. A. Pacey receives consultancy fees for Carrot Fertility and Cryos International as well as lecturing for IBSA Institut Biochimique SA and Mealis Group—all fees paid to The University of Manchester. He is also a Trustee of Progress Educational. Trust (Charity Number 1139856) and Chairman of UKNEQAS Reproductive Sciences Advisory Committee. F.T. is the recipient...

Do the Edinburgh Selection Criteria correctly identify female cancer patients under the age of 18 who are at risk of premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) as candidates for ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC)? Patient assessment using these criteria accurately identifies those at risk of POI, who can be offered OTC and future transplantation as a means of fertility preservation. Treatment for childhood cancer can have adverse consequences on future fertility; at the time of diagnosis, fertility risk assessment should be undertaken in order to identify patients to whom fertility preservation should be offered. The Edinburgh selection criteria, based on planned cancer treatment and patient health status, are utilized to identify those at high risk and therefore eligible for OTC. However, this procedure is not without risk and there are few data on the efficacy of the procedure in prepubertal patients. As such, long-term follow-up of reproductive outcomes is necessary, to ensure that OTC is being offered appropriately. Cohort study encompassing all females diagnosed with cancer under the age of 18 in South East Scotland, from 1 January 1996 to 30 April 2020. Patients were followed up for reproductive outcomes to assess for diagnosis of POI. A total of 638 eligible patients were identified; patients under the age of 12 or deceased before the age of 12 were excluded from the study, leaving a study population of 431 patients. Electronic records were reviewed for reproductive function, assessed by current menstruation, pregnancy (in the absence of POI diagnosis), reproductive hormone measurements, pubertal progression, or diagnosis of POI. Patients on hormonal contraception (other than for treatment of POI or panhypopituitarism with no history of gonadatoxic treatment) were excluded from analysis (n = 9). Analysis on remaining 422 patients was carried out using the Kaplan–Meier methods, with POI as the defined event, and Cox proportional hazards model. In the study population of 431 patients, median ages at diagnosis and analysis were 9.8 and 22.2 years, respectively. Reproductive outcomes were unavailable in 142 patients; the assumption was made that these patients did not have POI, but a subanalysis excluding these patients was also performed. Of the 422 patients aged >12 at analysis and not taking hormonal contraception, OTC was offered to 37 patients and successfully performed in 25 patients. Of the 37 patients offered OTC (one at time of relapse), nine (24.3%) developed POI. Of the 386 not offered OTC, 11 (2.9%) developed POI. The probability of developing POI was significantly higher in those offered OTC (hazard ratio [HR] 8.7 [95% CI 3.6–21]; P < 0.0001), even when those patients with unknown outcomes were excluded from the analysis (HR 8.1 [95% CI 3.4–20]; P < 0.001). All patients offered OTC who developed POI did so after treatment for primary disease; in those not offered OTC, five patients (45.5%) developed POI after treatment for disease relapse. A significant number of patients had unknown reproductive outcomes; many of these patients were engaged in ongoing follow-up but did not have documented reproductive assessment. This may have introduced bias to the analysis and highlights the need for reproductive follow-up as part of routine cancer aftercare. In addition, the relatively young age of the patient population and short duration of follow-up in some cases demonstrates the need for ongoing follow-up of this cohort. The prevalence of POI after childhood cancer is low, but the Edinburgh selection criteria remain a robust tool for selecting those at high risk at the time of diagnosis, to offer OTC appropriately. However, disease relapse necessitating more intensive treatments remains a challenge. This study additionally highlights the importance of routine assessment and documentation of reproductive status in haematology/oncology follow-up. K.D. is supported by a CRUK grant (C157/A25193). This work was undertaken in part in the MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, (supported by MRC grant MR/N022556/1). R.A.A. has received consulting fees from Ferring and Roche Diagnostics; payment from Merck and IBSA for educational events; and laboratory materials from Roche Diagnostics. The other authors have no competing interests to declare. N/A.

We aim to develop, disseminate and implement a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future male infertility research. Research into male infertility can be challenging to design, conduct and report. Evidence from randomized trials can be difficult to interpret and of limited ability to inform clinical practice for numerous reasons. These may include complex issues, such as variation in outcome measures and outcome reporting bias, as well as failure to consider the perspectives of men and their partners with lived experience of fertility problems. Previously, the Core Outcome Measure for Infertility Trials (COMMIT) initiative, an international consortium of researchers, healthcare professionals and people with fertility problems, has developed a core outcome set for general infertility research. Now, a bespoke core outcome set for male infertility is required to address the unique challenges pertinent to male infertility research. Stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, scientists, researchers and people with fertility problems, will be invited to participate. Formal consensus science methods will be used, including the modified Delphi method, modified Nominal Group Technique and the National Institutes of Health’s consensus development conference. An international steering group, including the relevant stakeholders outlined above, has been established to guide the development of this core outcome set. Possible core outcomes will be identified by undertaking a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male factor infertility. These outcomes will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Repeated reflection and re-scoring should promote convergence towards consensus outcomes, which will be prioritized during a consensus development meeting to identify a final core outcome set. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes. This work has been supported by the Urology Foundation small project award, 2021. C.L.R.B. is the recipient of a BMGF grant and received consultancy fees from Exscentia and Exceed sperm testing, paid to the University of Dundee and speaking fees or honoraria paid personally by Ferring, Copper Surgical and RBMO. S.B. received royalties from Cambridge University Press, Speaker honoraria for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Singapore, Merk SMART Masterclass and Merk FERRING Forum, paid to the University of Aberdeen. Payment for leadership roles within NHS Grampian, previously paid to self, now paid to University of Aberdeen. An Honorarium is received as Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. M.L.E. is an advisor to the companies Hannah and Ro. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from the NHMRC, No: GNT1176437 is a paid consultant for ObsEva and has received research funding from Ferring and Merck. R.R.H. received royalties from Elsevier for a book, consultancy fees from Glyciome, and presentation fees from GryNumber Health and Aytu Bioscience. Aytu Bioscience also funded MiOXYS systems and sensors. Attendance at Fertility 2020 and Roadshow South Africa by Ralf Henkel was funded by LogixX Pharma Ltd. R.R.H. is also Editor in Chief of Andrologia and has been an employee of LogixX Pharma Ltd. since 2020. M.S.K. is an associate editor with Human Reproduction Open. K.Mc.E. received an honoraria for lectures from Bayer and Pharmasure in 2019 and payment for an ESHRE grant review in 2019. His attendance at ESHRE 2019 and AUA 2019 was sponsored by Pharmasure and Bayer, respectively. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative registration No: 1586. Available at www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1586. N/A. N/A.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the primary outcomes and outcome measures used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating potential treatments for male infertility in the last 10 years?SUMMARY ANSWER: Outcome reporting across male infertility trials is heterogeneous with numerous definitions and measures used to define similar outcomes.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: No core outcome set for male infertility trials has been developed. Male infertility trials are unique in that they have potentially three participants, a man, a female partner and their offspring and this will likely lead to significant variation in outcome reporting in randomized trials.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review of RCTs mapping outcomes and outcome measures evaluating potential treatments for men with infertility registered in the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 2010 and July 2021.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Abstract screening and study selection was undertaken in duplicate using a review protocol that was developed prior to commencing the review. No risk of bias assessment was undertaken as this review aims to report on outcome reporting only.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: One hundred and seventy-five RCTs were identified, and given the large number of studies we limited our review to the 100 largest trials. Seventy-nine different treatments were reported across the 100 largest RCTs including vitamin and dietary supplements (18 trials), surgical treatments (18 trials) and sperm selection techniques (22 trials). When considering the largest 100 trials (range: 80–2772 participants), 36 primary and 89 secondary outcomes were reported. Forty-seven trials reported a primary outcome and 36 trials clearly defined their primary outcome. Pregnancy outcomes were inconsistently reported and included pregnancy rate (51 trials), pregnancy loss including miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth (9 trials) and live birth (13 trials). Trials consistently reporting the same outcome frequently used different definitions. For example, semen quality was reported by 75 trials and was defined in 7 different ways, including; the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 criteria (32 trials), WHO 1999 criteria (18 trials), WHO 1992 criteria (3 trials), WHO 1999 and 1992 criteria (1 trial) and the Kruger strict morphology criteria (1 trial).LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only evaluated the 100 largest trials published in the last 10 years and did not report outcomes on the remaining 75. An outcome was included as a primary outcome only if clearly stated in the manuscript and we did not contact authors to clarify this. As our review mapped outcomes and outcome measures, we did not undertake an integrity assessment of the trials included in our review.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Most randomized trials evaluating treatments for male infertility report different outcomes. Only half of the RCTs reported pregnancy rate and even fewer reported live birth; furthermore, the definitions of these outcomes varies across trials. Developing, disseminating and implementing a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for male infertility research could help to improve outcome selection, collection and reporting.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): A.P.—chairman of external scientific advisory committee of Cryos International Denmark ApS, member of the scientific advisory board for Cytoswim LDT and ExSeed Health. Guest lecture at the ‘Insights for Fertility Conference’, funded by MERK SERONO Limited. M.v.W.—holds a ZON-MW research grant. No external funding was obtained for this study.