Semen quality and time to pregnancy: the Longitudinal Investigation of Fertility and the Environment Study.

Germaine M Buck Louis, Rajeshwari Sundaram, Enrique F Schisterman, Anne Sweeney, Courtney D Lynch, Sungduk Kim, José M Maisog, Robert Gore-Langton, Michael L Eisenberg, Zhen Chen
Author Information
  1. Germaine M Buck Louis: Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Maryland. Electronic address: louisg@mail.nih.gov.
  2. Rajeshwari Sundaram: Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Maryland.
  3. Enrique F Schisterman: Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Maryland.
  4. Anne Sweeney: School of Rural Public Health, Texas A&M Health Science Center, College Station, Texas.
  5. Courtney D Lynch: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
  6. Sungduk Kim: Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Maryland.
  7. José M Maisog: Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Maryland.
  8. Robert Gore-Langton: The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, Maryland.
  9. Michael L Eisenberg: Department of Urology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
  10. Zhen Chen: Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Maryland.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess semen parameters and couple fecundity as measured by time to pregnancy (TTP).
DESIGN: Observational prospective cohort with longitudinal measurement of TTP.
SETTING: Sixteen Michigan/Texas counties.
PATIENT(S): A total of 501 couples discontinuing contraception were followed for 1 year while trying to conceive; 473 men (94%) provided one semen sample, and 80% provided two samples.
INTERVENTION(S): None.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Using prospectively measured TTP, fecundability odds ratios (FORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for 36 individual semen quality parameters accounting for repeated semen samples, time off contraception, abstinence, enrollment site, and couples' ages, body mass indices, and serum cotinine concentrations.
RESULT(S): In adjusted models, semen quality parameters were associated with significantly shorter TTP as measured by FORs >1: percent motility, strict and traditional morphology, sperm head width, elongation factor, and acrosome area. Significantly longer TTPs or FORs <1 were observed for morphologic categories amorphous and round sperm heads and neck/midpiece abnormalities. No semen quality parameters achieved significance when simultaneously modeling all other significant semen parameters and covariates, except for percent coiled tail when adjusting for sperm concentration (FOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.99-1.00). Male age was consistently associated with reduced couple fecundity (FOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.93-0.99), reflecting a longer TTP across all combined models. Female but not male body mass index also conferred a longer TTP (FOR 0.98; 95% CI 0.96-0.99).
CONCLUSION(S): Several semen measures were significantly associated with TTP when modeled individually but not jointly and in the context of relevant couple-based covariates.

Keywords

References

  1. J Androl. 2006 Jan-Feb;27(1):66-71 [PMID: 16400080]
  2. Fertil Steril. 2013 Jan;99(1):63 [PMID: 23095139]
  3. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2011 Sep;25(5):413-24 [PMID: 21819423]
  4. J Urol. 2011 Feb;185(2):381-2 [PMID: 21168161]
  5. Fertil Steril. 2013 Jun;99(7):1958-64 [PMID: 23517858]
  6. Hum Reprod. 2013 Feb;28(2):462-70 [PMID: 23213178]
  7. Fertil Steril. 2007 Mar;87(3):554-64 [PMID: 17140573]
  8. Int J Androl. 2006 Feb;29(1):54-61; discussion 105-8 [PMID: 16466524]
  9. Hum Reprod. 2010 Jan;25(1):253-64 [PMID: 19828554]
  10. J Androl. 2000 May-Jun;21(3):478-84 [PMID: 10819457]
  11. J Androl. 1988 Nov-Dec;9(6):384-9 [PMID: 3215824]
  12. N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 8;345(19):1388-93 [PMID: 11794171]
  13. Hum Reprod. 2001 May;16(5):1012-9 [PMID: 11331653]
  14. J Androl. 2012 Nov-Dec;33(6):1111-8 [PMID: 22879528]
  15. Fertil Steril. 2006 Nov;86(5 Suppl 1):S202-9 [PMID: 17055823]
  16. J Androl. 2000 Jan-Feb;21(1):145-53 [PMID: 10670528]
  17. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2003 Sep;32(3):669-88 [PMID: 14560893]
  18. Aging Male. 2009 Dec;12(4):100-3 [PMID: 19883297]
  19. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2012 Dec;58(6):339-47 [PMID: 22913279]
  20. Med Clin North Am. 2006 Sep;90(5):1025-36 [PMID: 16962855]
  21. Hum Reprod. 1999 May;14(5):1250-4 [PMID: 10325272]
  22. Hum Reprod. 2012 Feb;27(2):583-93 [PMID: 22184203]
  23. Hum Reprod. 2000 Jul;15(7):1562-7 [PMID: 10875866]
  24. Urology. 2012 Oct;80(4):822-5 [PMID: 23021663]
  25. Arch Esp Urol. 2010 Apr;63(3):214-22 [PMID: 20431185]
  26. Andrologia. 2011 Aug;43(4):286-91 [PMID: 21486403]
  27. BMJ. 1993 Feb 20;306(6876):484-7 [PMID: 8448457]
  28. Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Jan;112(1):79-86 [PMID: 14698935]
  29. Hum Reprod Update. 2010 May-Jun;16(3):231-45 [PMID: 19934213]
  30. Hum Reprod. 2001 Dec;16(12):2697-704 [PMID: 11726598]
  31. Hum Reprod. 2001 May;16(5):972-8 [PMID: 11331648]
  32. BMJ Open. 2013 Apr 29;3(4): [PMID: 23633418]
  33. Am J Epidemiol. 1998 Nov 15;148(10):992-7 [PMID: 9829871]
  34. Chemosphere. 2012 Jun;87(11):1201-7 [PMID: 22309709]
  35. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2009;72(15-16):949-60 [PMID: 19672763]
  36. Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Apr;111(4):414-20 [PMID: 12676592]
  37. Hum Reprod Update. 2010 May-Jun;16(3):293-311 [PMID: 19889752]
  38. Hum Reprod. 2000 Dec;15(12):2478-82 [PMID: 11098014]
  39. Int J Androl. 2012 Jun;35(3):467-74 [PMID: 22150270]
  40. Fertil Steril. 2013 Mar 1;99(3):673-7 [PMID: 23391408]
  41. Hum Reprod. 1995 May;10(5):1090-7 [PMID: 7657747]
  42. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2005 Nov;53 Spec No 2:2S25-35 [PMID: 16471142]
  43. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Aug;14(8):1847-50 [PMID: 16103423]
  44. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;207(3):164-73 [PMID: 22405527]
  45. Fertil Steril. 2010 Dec;94(7):2898-901 [PMID: 20667533]
  46. Hum Reprod. 2001 Dec;16(12):2710-7 [PMID: 11726600]
  47. Reprod Toxicol. 1998 Jan-Feb;12(1):19-27 [PMID: 9431569]
  48. Fertil Steril. 2011 Jan;95(1):116-23 [PMID: 20674912]
  49. Hum Reprod. 2002 Jan;17(1):173-7 [PMID: 11756383]
  50. Int J Endocrinol. 2012;2012:649149 [PMID: 22319527]
  51. Hum Reprod. 2007 Jun;22(6):1634-7 [PMID: 17344224]
  52. J Androl. 2002 Jan-Feb;23(1):25-43 [PMID: 11780920]
  53. Hum Reprod Update. 2010 Jan-Feb;16(1):65-79 [PMID: 19696093]
  54. Int J Androl. 2008 Apr;31(2):81-92 [PMID: 17976178]
  55. Hum Reprod. 2002 May;17(5):1399-403 [PMID: 11980771]
  56. Fertil Steril. 2013 Mar 15;99(4):998-1007 [PMID: 23415969]
  57. Asian J Androl. 2012 Jul;14(4):584-90 [PMID: 22522503]
  58. Fertil Steril. 1994 Dec;62(6):1244-9 [PMID: 7957992]
  59. BMJ Open. 2012 Jul 02;2(4): [PMID: 22761286]
  60. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013 May;27(3):229-36 [PMID: 23574410]
  61. Methods Mol Biol. 2013;927:27-37 [PMID: 22992901]
  62. Hum Reprod. 2002 Feb;17(2):503-15 [PMID: 11821304]
  63. Clin Chem. 1997 Dec;43(12):2281-91 [PMID: 9439445]
  64. Environ Health Perspect. 2007 Aug;115(8):1169-76 [PMID: 17687443]

Grants

  1. ZIA HD008770-10/Intramural NIH HHS
  2. N01-HD-3-3356/NICHD NIH HHS
  3. ZIA HD008770-06/Intramural NIH HHS
  4. N0H-HD-3-3358/NICHD NIH HHS
  5. ZIA HD008770-08/Intramural NIH HHS
  6. ZIA HD008770-09/Intramural NIH HHS
  7. ZIA HD008770-07/Intramural NIH HHS
  8. N01-HD-3-3355/NICHD NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Adult
Cohort Studies
Environment
Female
Fertility
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Pregnancy
Prospective Studies
Semen Analysis
Time-to-Pregnancy

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0semenTTP0parametersS:time95%qualityspermfecunditymeasuredFORsassociatedlongerFOR99CIcouplepregnancycontraceptionprovidedsamplesbodymassmodelssignificantlypercentcovariatesOBJECTIVE:assessDESIGN:ObservationalprospectivecohortlongitudinalmeasurementSETTING:SixteenMichigan/TexascountiesPATIENTtotal501couplesdiscontinuingfollowed1yeartryingconceive473men94%onesample80%twoINTERVENTIONNoneMAINOUTCOMEMEASUREUsingprospectivelyfecundabilityoddsratiosconfidenceintervalsCIsestimated36individualaccountingrepeatedabstinenceenrollmentsitecouples'agesindicesserumcotinineconcentrationsRESULTadjustedshorter>1:motilitystricttraditionalmorphologyheadwidthelongationfactoracrosomeareaSignificantlyTTPs<1observedmorphologiccategoriesamorphousroundheadsneck/midpieceabnormalitiesachievedsignificancesimultaneouslymodelingsignificantexceptcoiledtailadjustingconcentration99-100Maleageconsistentlyreduced9693-0reflectingacrosscombinedFemalemaleindexalsoconferred9896-0CONCLUSIONSeveralmeasuresmodeledindividuallyjointlycontextrelevantcouple-basedSemenpregnancy:LongitudinalInvestigationFertilityEnvironmentStudyEpidemiology

Similar Articles

Cited By