Human sperm acrosome function assays are predictive of fertilization rate in vitro: a retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether acrosome function scoring-including acrosomal enzyme (AE) levels and acrosome reaction (AR) results-can predict fertilization rate in vitro.

METHODS: We examined the predictive value of acrosomal enzymes (AE) determined by spectrophotometry/N-α-benzoyl-DL-arginine-p-nitroanilide for fertilization rate (FR) in vitro in a retrospective cohort study of 737 infertile couples undergoing IVF therapy. Additionally, a meta-analysis was done for prospective cohort or case-control studies; the following summary measures were reported to expand upon the findings: pooled spearman correlation coefficient (Rs), standardized mean difference (SMD), sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic score (DS), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS: Lower AE levels determined by spectrophotometry with a cut-off value of <25μIU/106 spermatozoa were predictive of total fertilization failure (TFF) with moderate SEN (88.23%) and low SPE (16.50%). On meta-analysis, a total of 44 unique articles were selected, but given the multiple techniques described there was a total of 67 total datasets extracted from these 44 articles, comprising 5356 infertile couples undergoing IVF therapy. The AE levels or induced AR% was positively correlated with FR (Rs = 0.38, SMD = 0.79; Rs = 0.40, SMD = 0.86, respectively). Lower AE levels or induced AR% was predictive of lower fertilization rate with moderate accuracy (AUC = 0.78, AUC = 0.84, respectively); this was accompanied by low SEN/moderate SPE (0.57/0.85), moderate SEN/moderate SPE (0.79/0.87), respectively. For AE assay, the diagnostic performance in Asia (Rs = 0.24, SMD = 0.50) was inferior to that in North America (Rs = 0.54, SMD = 0.81) and Europe (Rs = 0.46, SMD = 0.92). Cryopreserved spermatozoa (SMD = 0.20, P = 0.204) were inferior to fresh spermatozoa (SMD = 0.89, P <  0.001). Sperm preparation yielded inferior results as compared to no preparation; spermatozoa after swim up were weak relevant (Rs = 0.27, P = 0.044); and there was no correlation for spermatozoa after a discontinuous gradient (SMD = 1.07, P >  0.05). Lower AE levels determined by fluorometry or substrate assay were used for predicting lower FR with low sensitivity and high specificity; the spectrophotometry assay had an uncertain predictive value. For induced AR assay, the diagnostic performance in the other areas was inferior to that in Africa (Rs = 0.65, SMD = 1.86). No preparation or double preparation yielded inferior results as compared to one preparation (Rs = 0.41); discontinuous gradient (Rs = 0.17, SMD = 0.47) was inferior to swim up (Rs =0.65, SMD = 1.51). Nonphysiological triggers (SMD = 0.81) did not differ from physiological triggers (SMD = 0.95) in general; ZP (Rs = 0.63) or mannose (Rs = 0.59) was superior to other physiological or nonphysiological triggers; and there was no correlation for human follicle fluid, progesterone, cyclic adenosine 3'-5'-phosphate analogue and phorbol ester-BSA-GlcNAc Neoglycoproteins with N-acetylglucosamine residues. Lower induced AR% determined by indirect immunofluorescence, direct immunofluorescence with lection, or triple stain was used for predicting lower FR, with moderate sensitivity/high specificity, moderate sensitivity/high specificity, or high sensitivity/low specificity.

CONCLUSIONS: Although the correlation between acrosome function scoring and FR was significant, the assays were neither highly sensitive nor specific. Additionally, the diagnostic performance showed regional effects as well as an effect of the sperm preparation or assay method. More studies of multicenter, large-scale, careful design and synthesizing multiple sperm functional assays and oocyte quality assays are still needed in clinical settings to better predict fertilization outcome in IVF.