4.7 Article

TNF-α inhibitors do not impair sperm quality in males with ankylosing spondylitis after short-term or long-term treatment

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 53, 期 7, 页码 1250-1255

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keu007

关键词

sperm parameters; ankylosing spondylitis; TNF-alpha blockers; active disease; biologic therapy; fatherhood; reproduction; fertility; spermatogenesis; treatment

资金

  1. Mepha
  2. MSD
  3. Pfizer
  4. Roche
  5. AbbVie
  6. UCB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods. Twenty-three active AS patients and 42 controls were recruited. Patients' sperm samples were analysed at baseline (previous to) and at 3-6 months after TNF-alpha therapy (adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept) administration. Baseline assessment was made for only 20 patients, 2 of them proving to have normal fertility, 2 having a pregnant stable partner and the third having a 9-month-old child. Six patients were retested after 12 months of biologic therapy. Each patient acted as his own comparator. Results were further compared with sperm samples from age-matched controls. Sperm analysis was performed according to the World Health Organization (WHO) 1999 guidelines. Results. Patients' baseline assessment showed normozoospermia in 91% and oligozoospermia in 9% of patients. No significant differences in sperm quality were noticed at follow-up visits compared with baseline. Comparison to controls showed no statistically significant differences in semen quality, with some exceptions: the control group presented a higher percentage of non-progressive and immobile sperm cells and higher numbers of head and tail atypias. Conclusion. Sperm quality in patients with active AS and after receiving short- and long-term TNF-alpha blocker therapy is comparable to sperm quality in healthy controls. Our study confirms that the disease process of AS does not have a major impact on sperm quality and that treatment with anti-TNF has no negative impact on sperm quality even under long-term treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据