Frequency and predictive value of antisperm antibodies among infertile couples

Although sperm-associated antibody could impair fertility through various mechanisms, the results of follow-up studies do not uniformly confirm that pregnancy rates are lower when one of the infertile partners demonstrates antibody to spermatozoa. We conducted a prospective double-blind cohort compa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Human reproduction (Oxford) 1993-04, Vol.8 (4), p.592-598
Hauptverfasser: Collins, J.A., Burrows, E.A., Yeo, J., YoungLai, E.V.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Although sperm-associated antibody could impair fertility through various mechanisms, the results of follow-up studies do not uniformly confirm that pregnancy rates are lower when one of the infertile partners demonstrates antibody to spermatozoa. We conducted a prospective double-blind cohort comparative analysis in which antibody assay results were not available to physicians or patients for clinical management. The diagnostic protocol included mid-luteal progesterone, semen analysis, hysterosalpingogram and laparoscopy. The serum of each partner was assayed by immunobead testing, tray agglutination testing and a gelatin agglutination test. Data on relevant clinical characteristics and events during follow-up were collected prospectively. Among 471 couples in whom both partners were evaluated, 42 (8.9%) tested positive for anti-sperm antibodies by one or more assays, including 38 (8.1%) male partners and 6 (1.3%) female partners. The number of conceptions was 118/429 (27.5%) in antibody negative couples, 9/38 (23.7%) in male partner-positive couples and 1/6 (16.7%) in female partner-positive couples. With proportional hazards analysis, antibody status in either partner was not a significant independent predictor of time to pregnancy.
ISSN:0268-1161
1460-2350
DOI:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138102