TBD Meeting (3187-22)

In a survey taken before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling regarding abortion rights, two-thirds of assisted reproduction technology (ART) physicians who don’t offer mifepristone/misoprostol to patients with early pregnancy loss (EPL) reported that they lack access to the drugs.

The numbers are likely higher now. In the wake of the court ruling, some physicians in states with new abortion restrictions fear they won’t be able to properly treat women with miscarriages. Access to mifepristone, a component of medication abortions along with misoprostol, is at the center of their concerns.

“These restrictions that were put in place to restrict abortion care have far-reaching implications regarding miscarriages and early pregnancy loss and the assisted reproduction community is not immune,” obstetrics and gynecology specialist Zachary Anderson, MD, a resident physician at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. He presented the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting.

Early pregnancy loss – defined as a miscarriage within 12 weeks and 6 days of conception – is common in all pregnancies and affects an estimated 15% of those who rely on in vitro fertilization (IVF). In women who conceive through intrauterine insemination or IVF, “an abnormal karyotype embryo/fetus is the cause of miscarriage in more than two-thirds of cases,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “The options of management are observation – with no ability to determine when passage of the products of conception will occur – vs. mifepristone/misoprostol or suction D&C.”

Dr. Trolice added that “most woman select the medical treatment protocol, which is 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally 24 hours later. If no signs of heavy bleeding occur after 3 hours following misoprostol, the patient should repeat the dose of 800 micrograms vaginally.”

According to the Reuters news service, some abortion bans target mifepristone. In October 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve mifepristone for use in miscarriage management; such use is now off label, although it is approved to end early pregnancies in conjunction with misoprostol.

For the new study, researchers sent anonymous surveys to 826 members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and received 101 responses (12% response rate, 51% women, 86% non-Hispanic White, average age 52, 52% urban, and 51% in private practice).

More than two-thirds (70%) said they diagnosed early pregnancy loss at least once a week; 47% prefer treatment with misoprostol alone, 18% surgery in an operating room, 15% expectant management (monitoring a miscarriage as it occurs without medical intervention), 10% surgery in the office, and 3% mifepristone-misoprostol.

Of those who don’t offer mifepristone-misoprostol, 68% said they lack access, and 26% said they lack familiarity with the treatment.

Study coauthor Brian T. Nguyen, MD, MSc, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USC, said in an interview that mifepristone, a highly effective drug, is treated differently from other medications “for no good reason.”

Dr. Anderson, who led the study, urged colleagues to get the appropriate certification to prescribe mifepristone. “Providers overestimate how difficult it is to become certified to prescribe it,” he said.

Dr. Trolice, who is familiar with the study findings, said the response rate is low, and the results might be biased because those with preconceived opinions may be more likely to respond.

However, he said, “The results are not surprising in that medication is more commonly preferred (nearly 50%) given the devastation of a miscarriage and the desire to expedite resolution. Approximately one-third prefer surgical management, which would allow for genetic testing of the embryo/fetus to potentially determine a cause of the pregnancy loss.”

As for the medications used to treat early pregnancy loss, many ART physicians “treat pregnancy loss with misoprostol both pre- and post Dobbs,” he said. “The difficulty in obtaining mifepristone remains.”

The study authors and Dr. Trolice report no disclosures.

In a survey taken before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling regarding abortion rights, two-thirds of assisted reproduction technology (ART) physicians who don’t offer mifepristone/misoprostol to patients with early pregnancy loss (EPL) reported that they lack access to the drugs.

The numbers are likely higher now. In the wake of the court ruling, some physicians in states with new abortion restrictions fear they won’t be able to properly treat women with miscarriages. Access to mifepristone, a component of medication abortions along with misoprostol, is at the center of their concerns.

“These restrictions that were put in place to restrict abortion care have far-reaching implications regarding miscarriages and early pregnancy loss and the assisted reproduction community is not immune,” obstetrics and gynecology specialist Zachary Anderson, MD, a resident physician at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. He presented the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting.

Early pregnancy loss – defined as a miscarriage within 12 weeks and 6 days of conception – is common in all pregnancies and affects an estimated 15% of those who rely on in vitro fertilization (IVF). In women who conceive through intrauterine insemination or IVF, “an abnormal karyotype embryo/fetus is the cause of miscarriage in more than two-thirds of cases,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “The options of management are observation – with no ability to determine when passage of the products of conception will occur – vs. mifepristone/misoprostol or suction D&C.”

Dr. Trolice added that “most woman select the medical treatment protocol, which is 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally 24 hours later. If no signs of heavy bleeding occur after 3 hours following misoprostol, the patient should repeat the dose of 800 micrograms vaginally.”

According to the Reuters news service, some abortion bans target mifepristone. In October 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve mifepristone for use in miscarriage management; such use is now off label, although it is approved to end early pregnancies in conjunction with misoprostol.

For the new study, researchers sent anonymous surveys to 826 members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and received 101 responses (12% response rate, 51% women, 86% non-Hispanic White, average age 52, 52% urban, and 51% in private practice).

More than two-thirds (70%) said they diagnosed early pregnancy loss at least once a week; 47% prefer treatment with misoprostol alone, 18% surgery in an operating room, 15% expectant management (monitoring a miscarriage as it occurs without medical intervention), 10% surgery in the office, and 3% mifepristone-misoprostol.

Of those who don’t offer mifepristone-misoprostol, 68% said they lack access, and 26% said they lack familiarity with the treatment.

Study coauthor Brian T. Nguyen, MD, MSc, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USC, said in an interview that mifepristone, a highly effective drug, is treated differently from other medications “for no good reason.”

Dr. Anderson, who led the study, urged colleagues to get the appropriate certification to prescribe mifepristone. “Providers overestimate how difficult it is to become certified to prescribe it,” he said.

Dr. Trolice, who is familiar with the study findings, said the response rate is low, and the results might be biased because those with preconceived opinions may be more likely to respond.

However, he said, “The results are not surprising in that medication is more commonly preferred (nearly 50%) given the devastation of a miscarriage and the desire to expedite resolution. Approximately one-third prefer surgical management, which would allow for genetic testing of the embryo/fetus to potentially determine a cause of the pregnancy loss.”

As for the medications used to treat early pregnancy loss, many ART physicians “treat pregnancy loss with misoprostol both pre- and post Dobbs,” he said. “The difficulty in obtaining mifepristone remains.”

The study authors and Dr. Trolice report no disclosures.

In a survey taken before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling regarding abortion rights, two-thirds of assisted reproduction technology (ART) physicians who don’t offer mifepristone/misoprostol to patients with early pregnancy loss (EPL) reported that they lack access to the drugs.

The numbers are likely higher now. In the wake of the court ruling, some physicians in states with new abortion restrictions fear they won’t be able to properly treat women with miscarriages. Access to mifepristone, a component of medication abortions along with misoprostol, is at the center of their concerns.

“These restrictions that were put in place to restrict abortion care have far-reaching implications regarding miscarriages and early pregnancy loss and the assisted reproduction community is not immune,” obstetrics and gynecology specialist Zachary Anderson, MD, a resident physician at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. He presented the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting.

Early pregnancy loss – defined as a miscarriage within 12 weeks and 6 days of conception – is common in all pregnancies and affects an estimated 15% of those who rely on in vitro fertilization (IVF). In women who conceive through intrauterine insemination or IVF, “an abnormal karyotype embryo/fetus is the cause of miscarriage in more than two-thirds of cases,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “The options of management are observation – with no ability to determine when passage of the products of conception will occur – vs. mifepristone/misoprostol or suction D&C.”

Dr. Trolice added that “most woman select the medical treatment protocol, which is 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally 24 hours later. If no signs of heavy bleeding occur after 3 hours following misoprostol, the patient should repeat the dose of 800 micrograms vaginally.”

According to the Reuters news service, some abortion bans target mifepristone. In October 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve mifepristone for use in miscarriage management; such use is now off label, although it is approved to end early pregnancies in conjunction with misoprostol.

For the new study, researchers sent anonymous surveys to 826 members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and received 101 responses (12% response rate, 51% women, 86% non-Hispanic White, average age 52, 52% urban, and 51% in private practice).

More than two-thirds (70%) said they diagnosed early pregnancy loss at least once a week; 47% prefer treatment with misoprostol alone, 18% surgery in an operating room, 15% expectant management (monitoring a miscarriage as it occurs without medical intervention), 10% surgery in the office, and 3% mifepristone-misoprostol.

Of those who don’t offer mifepristone-misoprostol, 68% said they lack access, and 26% said they lack familiarity with the treatment.

Study coauthor Brian T. Nguyen, MD, MSc, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USC, said in an interview that mifepristone, a highly effective drug, is treated differently from other medications “for no good reason.”

Dr. Anderson, who led the study, urged colleagues to get the appropriate certification to prescribe mifepristone. “Providers overestimate how difficult it is to become certified to prescribe it,” he said.

Dr. Trolice, who is familiar with the study findings, said the response rate is low, and the results might be biased because those with preconceived opinions may be more likely to respond.

However, he said, “The results are not surprising in that medication is more commonly preferred (nearly 50%) given the devastation of a miscarriage and the desire to expedite resolution. Approximately one-third prefer surgical management, which would allow for genetic testing of the embryo/fetus to potentially determine a cause of the pregnancy loss.”

As for the medications used to treat early pregnancy loss, many ART physicians “treat pregnancy loss with misoprostol both pre- and post Dobbs,” he said. “The difficulty in obtaining mifepristone remains.”

The study authors and Dr. Trolice report no disclosures.

A new study provides more evidence that HPV infection doesn’t raise the risk of poor outcomes in women who undergo fertility treatment via in vitro fertilization with fresh embryos. In fact, HPV-positive women were somewhat more likely than HPV-negative women to become pregnant (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.39) and have live births (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70), researchers reported Oct. 24 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting .

“This evidence should reassure women that being HPV positive will not affect live birth rates after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” said study coauthor and ob.gyn. Nina Vyas, MD, a clinical fellow at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in an interview.

According to Dr. Vyas, previous studies have offered conflicting results about whether HPV affects pregnancy outcomes. In 2006, for example, her group performed a pilot study (Fertil Steril. Jun 16. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.01.051) that linked lower pregnancy rates to HPV-positive tests on the day of egg retrieval.

“We sought to reevaluate this finding in a retrospective manner,” Dr. Vyas said. “You’re taking eggs out of their home, injecting with sperm, and putting them back. There’s so much that we don’t know, and we want to make sure there’s no extra risk.”

Also, she added, “prior studies had a relatively low sample size. We sought to use our patient volume to address this question on a larger scale. Our current study benefits from a large sample size and using the clinically meaningful endpoint of live birth as our primary outcome.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed 1,333 patients (of 2,209 screened) who received first fresh embryo transfers from 2017 to 2019. All had cytology or HPV status documented per cervical cancer screening guidelines within 6 months before embryos were transferred.

The researchers looked at only fresh embryo transfers “so we could account for pregnancy outcomes closest to the documented HPV status at the time of egg retrieval,” Dr. Vyas said.

Ten percent (133) of patients were HPV positive. Of those, 60.1% became pregnant, and 43.6% of them had live births. Of the HPV-negative women (90% of subjects, n = 1,200), 52.2% became pregnant and 33.5% had live births. The researchers didn’t calculate P values, but Dr. Vyas said an analysis determined that the differences between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women were statistically significant.

The study size doesn’t allow researchers to determine whether HPV actually has a protective effect on pregnancy/live birth rates in IVF, Dr. Vyas said. Even if it did, the virus is dangerous.

What else could explain the discrepancy? “Some elements driving this could the smaller sample size of the HPV-positive group, differences in HPV prevalence between the general population and our population,” she said, “or other confounding factors we were not able to appreciate due to the limitations of the retrospective study.”

Researchers also reported that they found “no significant difference in biochemical or spontaneous abortion rates” between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women.

What is the message of the study? “Women with HPV can rest assured that they won’t have worse outcomes than their non-HPV [infected] counterparts after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” Dr. Vyas said.

In an interview, McGill University, Montreal, epidemiologist Helen Trottier, PhD, MSc, noted that she recently coauthored a study that linked persistent HPV infection in pregnancy to premature births. The findings appear convincing, she said: “I think we can say that HPV is associated with preterm birth.”

She praised the new study but noted “the relative risks that are reported need to be adjusted for race and possibly other factors.”

Dr. Vyas said that kind of adjustment will occur in a future study that’s in progress. “We are now prospectively enrolling patients and collecting cytology data to understand whether there might be a difference for women with higher malignancy potential/different types of HPV genotypes.”

The study authors have no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Trottier was unavailable.

A new study provides more evidence that HPV infection doesn’t raise the risk of poor outcomes in women who undergo fertility treatment via in vitro fertilization with fresh embryos. In fact, HPV-positive women were somewhat more likely than HPV-negative women to become pregnant (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.39) and have live births (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70), researchers reported Oct. 24 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting .

“This evidence should reassure women that being HPV positive will not affect live birth rates after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” said study coauthor and ob.gyn. Nina Vyas, MD, a clinical fellow at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in an interview.

According to Dr. Vyas, previous studies have offered conflicting results about whether HPV affects pregnancy outcomes. In 2006, for example, her group performed a pilot study (Fertil Steril. Jun 16. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.01.051) that linked lower pregnancy rates to HPV-positive tests on the day of egg retrieval.

“We sought to reevaluate this finding in a retrospective manner,” Dr. Vyas said. “You’re taking eggs out of their home, injecting with sperm, and putting them back. There’s so much that we don’t know, and we want to make sure there’s no extra risk.”

Also, she added, “prior studies had a relatively low sample size. We sought to use our patient volume to address this question on a larger scale. Our current study benefits from a large sample size and using the clinically meaningful endpoint of live birth as our primary outcome.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed 1,333 patients (of 2,209 screened) who received first fresh embryo transfers from 2017 to 2019. All had cytology or HPV status documented per cervical cancer screening guidelines within 6 months before embryos were transferred.

The researchers looked at only fresh embryo transfers “so we could account for pregnancy outcomes closest to the documented HPV status at the time of egg retrieval,” Dr. Vyas said.

Ten percent (133) of patients were HPV positive. Of those, 60.1% became pregnant, and 43.6% of them had live births. Of the HPV-negative women (90% of subjects, n = 1,200), 52.2% became pregnant and 33.5% had live births. The researchers didn’t calculate P values, but Dr. Vyas said an analysis determined that the differences between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women were statistically significant.

The study size doesn’t allow researchers to determine whether HPV actually has a protective effect on pregnancy/live birth rates in IVF, Dr. Vyas said. Even if it did, the virus is dangerous.

What else could explain the discrepancy? “Some elements driving this could the smaller sample size of the HPV-positive group, differences in HPV prevalence between the general population and our population,” she said, “or other confounding factors we were not able to appreciate due to the limitations of the retrospective study.”

Researchers also reported that they found “no significant difference in biochemical or spontaneous abortion rates” between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women.

What is the message of the study? “Women with HPV can rest assured that they won’t have worse outcomes than their non-HPV [infected] counterparts after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” Dr. Vyas said.

In an interview, McGill University, Montreal, epidemiologist Helen Trottier, PhD, MSc, noted that she recently coauthored a study that linked persistent HPV infection in pregnancy to premature births. The findings appear convincing, she said: “I think we can say that HPV is associated with preterm birth.”

She praised the new study but noted “the relative risks that are reported need to be adjusted for race and possibly other factors.”

Dr. Vyas said that kind of adjustment will occur in a future study that’s in progress. “We are now prospectively enrolling patients and collecting cytology data to understand whether there might be a difference for women with higher malignancy potential/different types of HPV genotypes.”

The study authors have no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Trottier was unavailable.

A new study provides more evidence that HPV infection doesn’t raise the risk of poor outcomes in women who undergo fertility treatment via in vitro fertilization with fresh embryos. In fact, HPV-positive women were somewhat more likely than HPV-negative women to become pregnant (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.39) and have live births (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70), researchers reported Oct. 24 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting .

“This evidence should reassure women that being HPV positive will not affect live birth rates after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” said study coauthor and ob.gyn. Nina Vyas, MD, a clinical fellow at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in an interview.

According to Dr. Vyas, previous studies have offered conflicting results about whether HPV affects pregnancy outcomes. In 2006, for example, her group performed a pilot study (Fertil Steril. Jun 16. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.01.051) that linked lower pregnancy rates to HPV-positive tests on the day of egg retrieval.

“We sought to reevaluate this finding in a retrospective manner,” Dr. Vyas said. “You’re taking eggs out of their home, injecting with sperm, and putting them back. There’s so much that we don’t know, and we want to make sure there’s no extra risk.”

Also, she added, “prior studies had a relatively low sample size. We sought to use our patient volume to address this question on a larger scale. Our current study benefits from a large sample size and using the clinically meaningful endpoint of live birth as our primary outcome.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed 1,333 patients (of 2,209 screened) who received first fresh embryo transfers from 2017 to 2019. All had cytology or HPV status documented per cervical cancer screening guidelines within 6 months before embryos were transferred.

The researchers looked at only fresh embryo transfers “so we could account for pregnancy outcomes closest to the documented HPV status at the time of egg retrieval,” Dr. Vyas said.

Ten percent (133) of patients were HPV positive. Of those, 60.1% became pregnant, and 43.6% of them had live births. Of the HPV-negative women (90% of subjects, n = 1,200), 52.2% became pregnant and 33.5% had live births. The researchers didn’t calculate P values, but Dr. Vyas said an analysis determined that the differences between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women were statistically significant.

The study size doesn’t allow researchers to determine whether HPV actually has a protective effect on pregnancy/live birth rates in IVF, Dr. Vyas said. Even if it did, the virus is dangerous.

What else could explain the discrepancy? “Some elements driving this could the smaller sample size of the HPV-positive group, differences in HPV prevalence between the general population and our population,” she said, “or other confounding factors we were not able to appreciate due to the limitations of the retrospective study.”

Researchers also reported that they found “no significant difference in biochemical or spontaneous abortion rates” between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women.

What is the message of the study? “Women with HPV can rest assured that they won’t have worse outcomes than their non-HPV [infected] counterparts after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” Dr. Vyas said.

In an interview, McGill University, Montreal, epidemiologist Helen Trottier, PhD, MSc, noted that she recently coauthored a study that linked persistent HPV infection in pregnancy to premature births. The findings appear convincing, she said: “I think we can say that HPV is associated with preterm birth.”

She praised the new study but noted “the relative risks that are reported need to be adjusted for race and possibly other factors.”

Dr. Vyas said that kind of adjustment will occur in a future study that’s in progress. “We are now prospectively enrolling patients and collecting cytology data to understand whether there might be a difference for women with higher malignancy potential/different types of HPV genotypes.”

The study authors have no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Trottier was unavailable.

A small new study suggests – but doesn’t prove – that exposure to Wi-Fi signals from cell phones in pants pockets could disrupt male fertility. Researchers found that sperm placed next to an in-use iPhone on the Wi-Fi setting over 6 hours had less motility (50% vs. 38%, P = .024) and viability (60% vs. 47%, P = .003) than those set to 4G and 5G.

The findings, presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting, don’t confirm that cell phones are harmful, lead author Kevin Y. Chu, MD, a Los Angeles urologist, said in an interview. “We cannot draw conclusions from this study, as the study population was too small. What we did observe was that Wi-Fi, which was previously less studied, may have had an impact on sperm. We did not see an effect on sperm quality by the 4G or 5G wireless spectrum.”

According to Dr. Chu, dozens of studies have examined the possible effect of cell phone exposure on sperm quality. “In human survey studies, there was no association of use and decline of sperm quality,” he said. “In human sperm in vitro studies, there was a decline of sperm motility and viability. And in animal studies, there was decline of sperm motility and viability.”

The new study is a pilot “to see if it is feasible to do a large-scale project” to analyze any possible effects from radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) transmitted by cell phones, he said.

According to the study, cell phones emit radiation when they “transmit data for social media, web browsing, and music/podcast streaming,” and the rise of Bluetooth earbuds “presumably prolonged the amount of time the cell phone resides in the trouser pockets of men. This places the cell phone and its respective RF-EMR near the testicles for prolonged [periods].”

Researchers obtained semen samples from 27 men aged 25-35 who were fertile with normal sperm. Then they placed the samples on top of a current-generation iPhone that was set to talk mode via WhatsApp and transmitted/received signals via Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G.

The researchers found no difference in sperm quality between control samples and those exposed to 4G or 5G (n = 9), but Wi-Fi (n = 18) seemed to have an effect. “We also tested conditions with the phone in a cover, as well as separating it by about 6 inches [from the sperm samples]. We found that both did dampen the effect of what we were seeing in comparison to direct exposure,” Dr. Chu said. “It appears that heat that is emanated from the device contributes to this effect.”

Dr. Chu cautioned that the study examined only ejaculated sperm, and “does not replicate real life where there is scrotal wall protection [and] pants material.”

For now, he said, there’s not enough evidence to allow clinicians to provide guidance to patients about possible links between cell phone exposure and male fertility. None of the study authors have changed their own use of cell phones as a result of the findings, he added.

Moving forward, he said, “continued research on exposure effects is needed and the current association should be considered cautiously as hypothesis generating.”

In an interview, University of Utah urologist James Hotaling, MD, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the authors “have done a good job looking at this issue,” but with acknowledged limitations.

The study size is very small, he said, “making generalizability difficult.” And “while the results, particularly on the Wi-Fi part, are interesting, they must be validated.”

In the big picture, he said, “the decline in sperm counts over the last 40 years is multifactorial so it cannot all be attributed to this. Finally, to really make the claim that Wi-Fi impacted fertility, you would need to have a much larger study and, ideally, look at pregnancy rates in couples trying to conceive.”

Overall, he said, the scientific community is “still skeptical” about a link between cell phone use and a decline in male fertility.

The study authors and Dr. Hotaling have no relevant disclosures.

A small new study suggests – but doesn’t prove – that exposure to Wi-Fi signals from cell phones in pants pockets could disrupt male fertility. Researchers found that sperm placed next to an in-use iPhone on the Wi-Fi setting over 6 hours had less motility (50% vs. 38%, P = .024) and viability (60% vs. 47%, P = .003) than those set to 4G and 5G.

The findings, presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting, don’t confirm that cell phones are harmful, lead author Kevin Y. Chu, MD, a Los Angeles urologist, said in an interview. “We cannot draw conclusions from this study, as the study population was too small. What we did observe was that Wi-Fi, which was previously less studied, may have had an impact on sperm. We did not see an effect on sperm quality by the 4G or 5G wireless spectrum.”

According to Dr. Chu, dozens of studies have examined the possible effect of cell phone exposure on sperm quality. “In human survey studies, there was no association of use and decline of sperm quality,” he said. “In human sperm in vitro studies, there was a decline of sperm motility and viability. And in animal studies, there was decline of sperm motility and viability.”

The new study is a pilot “to see if it is feasible to do a large-scale project” to analyze any possible effects from radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) transmitted by cell phones, he said.

According to the study, cell phones emit radiation when they “transmit data for social media, web browsing, and music/podcast streaming,” and the rise of Bluetooth earbuds “presumably prolonged the amount of time the cell phone resides in the trouser pockets of men. This places the cell phone and its respective RF-EMR near the testicles for prolonged [periods].”

Researchers obtained semen samples from 27 men aged 25-35 who were fertile with normal sperm. Then they placed the samples on top of a current-generation iPhone that was set to talk mode via WhatsApp and transmitted/received signals via Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G.

The researchers found no difference in sperm quality between control samples and those exposed to 4G or 5G (n = 9), but Wi-Fi (n = 18) seemed to have an effect. “We also tested conditions with the phone in a cover, as well as separating it by about 6 inches [from the sperm samples]. We found that both did dampen the effect of what we were seeing in comparison to direct exposure,” Dr. Chu said. “It appears that heat that is emanated from the device contributes to this effect.”

Dr. Chu cautioned that the study examined only ejaculated sperm, and “does not replicate real life where there is scrotal wall protection [and] pants material.”

For now, he said, there’s not enough evidence to allow clinicians to provide guidance to patients about possible links between cell phone exposure and male fertility. None of the study authors have changed their own use of cell phones as a result of the findings, he added.

Moving forward, he said, “continued research on exposure effects is needed and the current association should be considered cautiously as hypothesis generating.”

In an interview, University of Utah urologist James Hotaling, MD, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the authors “have done a good job looking at this issue,” but with acknowledged limitations.

The study size is very small, he said, “making generalizability difficult.” And “while the results, particularly on the Wi-Fi part, are interesting, they must be validated.”

In the big picture, he said, “the decline in sperm counts over the last 40 years is multifactorial so it cannot all be attributed to this. Finally, to really make the claim that Wi-Fi impacted fertility, you would need to have a much larger study and, ideally, look at pregnancy rates in couples trying to conceive.”

Overall, he said, the scientific community is “still skeptical” about a link between cell phone use and a decline in male fertility.

The study authors and Dr. Hotaling have no relevant disclosures.

A small new study suggests – but doesn’t prove – that exposure to Wi-Fi signals from cell phones in pants pockets could disrupt male fertility. Researchers found that sperm placed next to an in-use iPhone on the Wi-Fi setting over 6 hours had less motility (50% vs. 38%, P = .024) and viability (60% vs. 47%, P = .003) than those set to 4G and 5G.

The findings, presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting, don’t confirm that cell phones are harmful, lead author Kevin Y. Chu, MD, a Los Angeles urologist, said in an interview. “We cannot draw conclusions from this study, as the study population was too small. What we did observe was that Wi-Fi, which was previously less studied, may have had an impact on sperm. We did not see an effect on sperm quality by the 4G or 5G wireless spectrum.”

According to Dr. Chu, dozens of studies have examined the possible effect of cell phone exposure on sperm quality. “In human survey studies, there was no association of use and decline of sperm quality,” he said. “In human sperm in vitro studies, there was a decline of sperm motility and viability. And in animal studies, there was decline of sperm motility and viability.”

The new study is a pilot “to see if it is feasible to do a large-scale project” to analyze any possible effects from radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) transmitted by cell phones, he said.

According to the study, cell phones emit radiation when they “transmit data for social media, web browsing, and music/podcast streaming,” and the rise of Bluetooth earbuds “presumably prolonged the amount of time the cell phone resides in the trouser pockets of men. This places the cell phone and its respective RF-EMR near the testicles for prolonged [periods].”

Researchers obtained semen samples from 27 men aged 25-35 who were fertile with normal sperm. Then they placed the samples on top of a current-generation iPhone that was set to talk mode via WhatsApp and transmitted/received signals via Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G.

The researchers found no difference in sperm quality between control samples and those exposed to 4G or 5G (n = 9), but Wi-Fi (n = 18) seemed to have an effect. “We also tested conditions with the phone in a cover, as well as separating it by about 6 inches [from the sperm samples]. We found that both did dampen the effect of what we were seeing in comparison to direct exposure,” Dr. Chu said. “It appears that heat that is emanated from the device contributes to this effect.”

Dr. Chu cautioned that the study examined only ejaculated sperm, and “does not replicate real life where there is scrotal wall protection [and] pants material.”

For now, he said, there’s not enough evidence to allow clinicians to provide guidance to patients about possible links between cell phone exposure and male fertility. None of the study authors have changed their own use of cell phones as a result of the findings, he added.

Moving forward, he said, “continued research on exposure effects is needed and the current association should be considered cautiously as hypothesis generating.”

In an interview, University of Utah urologist James Hotaling, MD, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the authors “have done a good job looking at this issue,” but with acknowledged limitations.

The study size is very small, he said, “making generalizability difficult.” And “while the results, particularly on the Wi-Fi part, are interesting, they must be validated.”

In the big picture, he said, “the decline in sperm counts over the last 40 years is multifactorial so it cannot all be attributed to this. Finally, to really make the claim that Wi-Fi impacted fertility, you would need to have a much larger study and, ideally, look at pregnancy rates in couples trying to conceive.”

Overall, he said, the scientific community is “still skeptical” about a link between cell phone use and a decline in male fertility.

The study authors and Dr. Hotaling have no relevant disclosures.