MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this case-control study, sixty-five infertile patients with idiopathic OA and forty fertile men (control) were included. All participants underwent semen analysis based on the World Health Organization guidelines (5th edition, 2010). Patients received CoQ10 at the dose of 200 mg/d orally for three months. Seminal plasma CoQ10, total antioxidant capacity (TAC), total reactive oxygen species (ROS), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and SDF levels were measured in controls (baseline) and infertile patients pre- and post-CoQ10 treatment.
RESULTS: CoQ10 treatment for three months significantly improved sperm concentration (p<0.05), progressive motility (p<0.05), total motility (p<0.01), seminal fluid CoQ10 concentration (p<0.001), TAC (p<0.001), and GPx (p<0.001) levels in infertile men with OA. Further, ROS level (p<0.05) and SDF percentage (p<0.001) were reduced in OA patients as compared to the baseline. CoQ10 levels also correlated positively with sperm concentration (r=0.48, p=0.01) and total motility (r=0.59, p=0.003) while a negative correlation was recorded between SDF and sperm motility (r=-0.54, p=0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: CoQ10 supplementation for three months could improve semen parameters, oxidative stress markers and reduce SDF in infertile men with idiopathic OA.
METHODS: This prospective controlled study included 50 patients with idiopathic OAT and 50 fertile men who served as controls. All patients underwent a comprehensive medical assessment. Patients and controls received 200 mg of oral CoQ10 once daily for 3 months. Semen and blood were collected and analyzed for sperm parameters, seminal CoQ10 levels, reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels, total antioxidant capacity, catalase, sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), and serum hormonal profile.
RESULTS: The administration of CoQ10 to patients with idiopathic OAT significantly improved sperm quality and seminal antioxidant status and significantly reduced total ROS and SDF levels compared to pretreatment values.
CONCLUSION: CoQ10, at a dose of 200 mg/day for 3 months, may be a potential therapy for infertile patients with idiopathic OAT, as it improved sperm parameters and reduced OS and SDF in these patients.
Main body: In light of the higher vulnerability of men to COVID-19 than women, there is rising concerns on the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on male fertility and possibilities of seminal contamination and transmission. The pandemic has attributed to the brief suspension of many fertility clinics and pathology laboratories, though many remained functional. Few reports reflect that SARS-CoV-2 can contaminate the semen of COVID-19 patients as well as that of recovering patients. The viral invasion into the testis may be due to the disrupted anatomical barriers of the testis by the inflammatory responses, and the persistence of the virus in the semen may be facilitated by the testicular immune privilege. Since SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped RNA virus, it is also theoretically possible that this virus can remain viable in the semen samples even after cryopreservation with liquid nitrogen.
Conclusion: The present review emphasizes the possibilities of seminal dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 and thereby the chances of its sexual transmission. These perceptions and predictions are to facilitate immediate necessary actions to improvise the standard precautionary procedures for laboratory practices, including semen analysis or processing the semen sample for fertility treatments.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 66 women (aged 16-30 years) from Kolkata, India, with confirmed PCOS, using Rotterdam criteria. IR was defined following the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA). Anthropometric and biochemical data were obtained using standard protocol and compared among the PCOS subjects grouped as per IR prevalence, BMI, and WHtR values. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve was applied to evaluate and compare the cut-off values of WHtR and BMI in the prediction of PCOS and IR in women with PCOS.
RESULTS: As per ROC analysis, WHtR showed significantly higher AUC in the detection of PCOS and IR in PCOS subjects respectively, than that of BMI. The cut-off values of WHtR and BMI for PCOS were 0.560 and 28.47 respectively, and for IR in PCOS patients, were 0.620 and 29.14 respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests a cut-off value of WHtR to be used as an inexpensive and noninvasive screening tool for early prediction of PCOS and IR among PCOS afflicted women based in Kolkata, India and for this prediction, the study also claims WHtR as a better index than BMI.