Assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the United States, 2017–2018: data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System

• Authors: Amy Jewett, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Lee Warner, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jennifer Kawwass, Emory University; Amisha Mehta, Emory University; Michael L Eisenberg, Stanford University School of Medicine; Ajay K Nangia, University of Kansas Medical Center; James M Dupree, University of Michigan Medical School; Stanton Honig, Yale School of Medicine; James M Hotaling, University of Utah School of Medicine; Dmitry Kissin, Emory University
• Journal Title: F and S Reports
• Volume: Volume 3, Number 2
• Publisher: Elsevier | 2022-06-01, Pages 124-130
• Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2022.03.004
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Medicine and Surgery
• Keywords: Assisted reproductive technology; epidemiology; infertility; male factor infertility; prevalence; surveillance

Abstract

Objective: To describe the prevalence and treatment characteristics of assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles involving specific male factor infertility diagnoses in the United States. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of ART cycles in the National ART Surveillance System (NASS). Setting: Clinics that reported patient ART cycles performed in 2017 and 2018. Patient(s): Patients who visited an ART clinic and the cycles were reported in the NASS. The ART cycles included all autologous and donor cycles that used fresh or frozen embryos. Intervention(s): Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Analyses used new, detailed reporting of male factor infertility subcategories, treatment characteristics, and male partner demographics available in the NASS. Result(s): Among 399,573 cycles started with intent to transfer an embryo, 30.4% (n = 121,287) included a male factor infertility diagnosis as a reason for using ART. Of these, male factor only was reported in 16.5% of cycles, and both male and female factors were reported in 13.9% of cycles; 21.8% of male factor cycles had >1 male factor. Abnormal sperm parameters were the most commonly reported diagnoses (79.7%), followed by medical condition (5.3%) and genetic or chromosomal abnormalities (1.0%). Males aged ≤40 years comprised 59.6% of cycles with male factor infertility. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection was the primary method of fertilization (81.7%). Preimplantation genetic testing was used in 26.8%, and single embryo transfer was used in 66.8% of cycles with male factor infertility diagnosis. Conclusion(s): Male factor infertility is a substantial contributor to infertility treatments in the United States. Continued assessment of the prevalence and characteristics of ART cycles with male factor infertility may inform treatment options and improve ART outcomes. Future studies are necessary to further evaluate male factor infertility.