It is widely accepted that oxidative stress plays an important role in the pathophysiology of male infertility and that antioxidants could have a significant role in the treatment of male infertility. The main objectives of this study are: 1) to systematically review the current evidence for the utility of antioxidants in the treatment of male infertility; and 2) propose evidence-based clinical guidelines for the use of antioxidants in the treatment of male infertility. A systematic review of the available clinical evidence was performed, with articles published on Scopus being manually screened. Data extracted included the type of antioxidant used, the clinical conditions under investigation, the evaluation of semen parameters and reproductive outcomes. The adherence to the Cambridge Quality Checklist, Cochrane Risk of Bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), CONSORT guidelines and JADAD score were analyzed for each included study. Further, we provided a Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat (SWOT) analysis to analyze the current and future value of antioxidants in male infertility. Of the 1,978 articles identified, 97 articles were included in the study. Of these, 52 (53.6%) were uncontrolled (open label), 12 (12.4%) unblinded RCTs, and 33 (34.0%) blinded RCTs, whereas 44 (45.4%) articles tested individual antioxidants, 31 (32.0%) a combination of several products in variable dosages, and 22 (22.6%) registered antioxidant products. Based on the published evidence, we 1) critically examined the necessity of additional double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, and 2) proposed updated evidence-based clinical guidelines for antioxidant therapy in male infertility. The current systematic review on antioxidants and male infertility clearly shows that antioxidant supplementation improves semen parameters. In addition, it provides the indications for antioxidant treatment in specific clinical conditions, including varicocele, unexplained and idiopathic male infertility, as well as in cases of altered semen quality.

Oxidative stress (OS) is an important contributing factor to male infertility. While previous methods to measure seminal OS are time-consuming and limited to the use of freshly produced semen, oxidation reduction potential (ORP) is easier and quicker to perform and can also be used in frozen semen. Therefore, this study evaluated the clinical utility of ORP as a potential marker of male infertility. ORP was measured in semen samples from 293 patients and 15 fertile controls and categorised according to WHO criteria as normozoospermic, oligozoospermic, asthenozoospermic, teratozoospermic and oligoasthenoteratozoospermic. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to differentiate these categories. Semen parameters were significantly different when subjects were grouped as control and patients or between the patient and normozoospermic group for concentration and morphology. ORP levels were significantly different between the control and normozoospermic group. When subjects were grouped based on concentration, motility, morphology or a combination of these, the area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and cut-off values were significantly different. These differences were significant when combined with ORP and grouped with any two sperm abnormalities. In conclusion, ORP is a quick, easy, cost-effective and reliable marker of semen quality as well as oxidative stress for use in a clinical setting.

Purpose The use of antioxidants is common practice in the management of infertile patients. However, there are no established guidelines by professional societies on antioxidant use for male infertility. Materials and Methods Using an online survey, this study aimed to evaluate the practice pattern of reproductive specialists to determine the clinical utility of oxidative stress (OS) testing and antioxidant prescriptions to treat male infertility. Results Responses from 1,327 participants representing 6 continents, showed the largest participant representation being from Asia (46.8%). The majority of participants were attending physicians (59.6%), with 61.3% having more than 10 years of experience in the field of male infertility. Approximately two-thirds of clinicians (65.7%) participated in this survey did not order any diagnostic tests for OS. Sperm DNA fragmentation was the most common infertility test beyond a semen analysis that was prescribed to study oxidative stress-related dysfunctions (53.4%). OS was mainly tested in the presence of lifestyle risk factors (24.6%) or sperm abnormalities (16.3%). Interestingly, antioxidants were prescribed by 85.6% of clinicians, for a duration of 3 (43.7%) or 3–6 months (38.6%). A large variety of antioxidants and dietary supplements were prescribed, and scientific evidence were mostly considered to be modest to support their clinical use. Results were not influenced by the physician's age, geographic origin, experience or training in male infertility. Conclusions This study is the largest online survey performed to date on this topic and demonstrates 1) a worldwide understanding of the importance of this therapeutic option, and 2) a widely prevalent use of antioxidants to treat male infertility. Finally, the necessity of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines from professional societies is highlighted.

Antioxidant supplementation in idiopathic male infertility has a beneficial effect on semen parameters. However, the molecular mechanism behind this effect has not been reported. The objective of this study was to evaluate the sperm proteome of idiopathic infertile men pre- and post-antioxidant supplementation. Idiopathic infertile men were provided with oral antioxidant supplementation once daily for a period of 6 months. Of the 379 differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) between pre- and post-antioxidant treatment patients, the majority of the proteins (n = 274) were overexpressed following antioxidant treatment. Bioinformatic analysis revealed the activation of oxidative phosphorylation pathway and upregulation of key proteins involved in spermatogenesis, sperm maturation, binding of sperm, fertilization and normal reproductive function. In addition, the transcriptional factors associated with antioxidant defense system (PPARGC1A) and free radical scavenging (NFE2L2) were predicted to be functionally activated post-treatment. Key DEPs, namely, NDUFS1, CCT3, PRKARA1 and SPA17 validated by Western blot showed significant overexpression post-treatment. Our novel proteomic findings suggest that antioxidant supplementation in idiopathic infertile men improves sperm function at the molecular level by modulating proteins involved in CREM signaling, mitochondrial function and protein oxidation. Further, activation of TRiC complex helped in nuclear compaction, maintenance of telomere length, flagella function, and expression of zona pellucida receptors for sperm–oocyte interaction.

Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/ uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions: Conclusions: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.