https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5577-3228
Figures
Abstract
Background
Evidence supports the benefits of hydroxyurea (HU) in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD), but reservations remain due to long-term concerns of fertility. Retrospective analysis of clinical records of SCD patients (haemoglobin SS genotype) have identified gender-related differences in disease progression. This could inform risk stratification during SCD at diagnosis with the possibility to guide therapeutic decisions.
Methods
This systemic review and meta-analysis evaluated fertility parameters in both children (aged ≥ 6 years) and adults with SCD receiving HU therapy. Studies were sourced from PubMed and EMBASE from inception to July 2023. A total of 160 potentially relevant articles were identified.
Results
Four studies were included that evaluated the effects of HU on sperm parameters in males. A further 4 studies assessed anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) levels and ovarian reserves in females. Differences from baseline values were used to identify compromised fertility. Amongst males, HU treatment negatively impacted the concentration of spermatozoa (MD = -15.48 million/mL; 95% CI: [-20.69, -10.26]; p< 0.001), which continued following treatment cessation (MD = -20.09 million/mL; 95% CI: [-38.78, -1.40]; P = 0.04). HU treatment also led to lower total sperm counts (MD = -105.87 million; 95% CI: [-140.61, -71.13]; P< 0.001) which persisted after treatment (MD = -53.05 million; 95% CI: [-104.96, -1.14]; P = 0.05). Sperm volume, initial forward motility and morphology were unaffected by HU treatment. In females, HU treatment decreased the mean AMH levels 1.83 (95% CI [1.42, 2.56]. A total of 18.2.% patients treated with HU showed reduced ovarian reserves.
Citation: Sewaralthahab S, Alsubki LA, Alhrabi MS, Alsultan A (2024) Effects of hydroxyurea on fertility in male and female sickle cell disease patients. A systemic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 19(6): e0304241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304241
Editor: Santosh L. Saraf, University of Illinois at Chicago, UNITED STATES
Received: November 12, 2023; Accepted: May 8, 2024; Published: June 7, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Sewaralthahab et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The study was funded by the National Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation (NPST) under grant number [13-MED1375-02]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Sickle cell disease (SCD) remains one of the most common inherited disorders globally [1]. In SCD individuals, abnormal sickle haemoglobin (HbS) forms polymers within red blood cells upon de-oxygenation, impeding blood flow leading to inflammation, vasculopathy and chronic hemolysis [1–4]. SCD predominately affects individuals originating from sub-Saharan Africa, the Mediterranean, Arab countries, India, the Caribbean and South America, as well as African‐Americans [5–8]. Based on current statistics, the estimated global birth rate is 515,000 individuals per-year. This translates to approximately 382 cases per 100,000 live births [8].
Hydroxyurea (HU) remains a widely available and clinically effective therapy for SCD [9–12]. HU was initially reserved for adult patients with clinical complications, but is now recommended to all SCD patients from 9 months of age, regardless of disease severity [11, 13–23]. A substantial body of evidence documents the benefits of HU with acceptable short- and long-term toxicity profiles, but concerns regarding its long-term safety persist, particularly regarding fertility [24]. As a ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor, HU can impair DNA synthesis, damaging actively dividing cells including gametes. In males, HU has been suggested to impact sperm counts for over 1 year following the cessation of therapy [24–26]. In females, diminished ovarian reserves and a higher risk of pregnancy associated teratogenicity has been documented [27]. The use of HU during pregnancy has also been reported to increase the risk of miscarriage, stillbirths and low birth weights [27]. Exposing SCD children to HU from an early age may therefore compromise their fertility and reproductive capability [17, 24–35].
Information on the effects of HU on human spermatogenesis and female reproductive capacity remain limited. This systemic review and meta-analysis combined data from publications in this area to determine the current understanding of fertility risks. We further describe recommendations and interventions based on the outcome of these analyses.
Materials and methods
Search strategy, sources and selection process
A systematic literature review was performed according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [36]. Articles published from inception to July 2023 were searched in PubMed and EMBASE. Terms used in the research for primary endpoints were ““sickle cell disease” and “infertility” and “hydroxyurea”; “sickle cell disease” and “fertility” and “hydroxyurea”; “sickle cell anaemia” and “hydroxyurea” and “infertility”; “sickle cell disease” and “hydroxycarbamide” and “infertility”; “sickle cell disease” and “hydroxycarbamide/hydorxyurea” and “ovarian reserve” or combination of the terms “sickle cell anaemia” and “hydroxycarbamide” and “infertility”. Our research focused on primary fertility outcomes stratified by male or female gender.
Study characteristics
Inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) Studies published in English from inception to the present day; (ii) Studies subjects (aged ≥ 6 years), prospective and retrospective cohort studies reporting frequency of outcomes of interests (semen parameters and female infertility events) stratified by HU therapy. Outcomes were measured according to frequency of events. All HU therapies were considered as one type of therapy. HU is conventionally administered by the oral route.
Case reports, reviews, animal studies, duplications and studies on very young patients (aged < 6 years) were excluded. Given that abnormal semen parameters and AMH values are common in SCD patients, these were not deemed as exclusion criteria for study.
Effect measures
Male studies were assessed for the effects of HU on the volume of ejaculate (mL), spermatozoa concentration (millions/mL), total sperm count (millions), initial forward motility (% of motile), spermatozoa morphology (% of normal), and vitality (% of living sperm). Female studies were assessed for the effects of HU on Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH; ng/mL), normal ovarian reserve (follicles per-ovary) and diminished ovarian reserve. In the pubertal and post-pubertal age groups, high AMH blood levels are deemed as over 4.0 ng/ml, normal levels: 1.5–4.0 ng/ml, low-normal levels: 1.0–1.5 ng/ml, and low levels: 0.5–1.0 ng/ml. Similarly, normal ovarian reserve in these groups is between 4 and 8 follicles per ovary; diminished ovarian reserve is deemed as ≤ 4 follicles per ovary.
Data extraction
Two reviewers extracted the data independently. Key characteristics including author name, year of publication, study design, type of study, number of HU treated patients, sperm volume (mL), spermatozoa concentration (millions/mL), initial forward motility (% of motile), spermatozoa morphology (% of normal), anti-Müllerian levels (ng/mL), ovarian reserve (follicles per-ovary) and serum levels of Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) were collected. Data were reported as the mean difference ± SD where applicable. Discrepancies in analyses were resolved by a third reviewer.
Assessment of study quality
Quality and bias assessments of eligible studies were performed independently by two reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality and risk of bias. The scale is designed to assess [1] selection; [2] comparability and [3] outcomes, divided across nine specific items. The maximum score on NOS was 9. Scores ≥ 7 were deemed high quality with a low risk of bias. Scores <5 were categorised as low quality with a high risk of inherent bias. Scores between these values were rated as moderate quality. Study quality was independently conducted by two investigators. Discrepancies were solved by discussion with a third investigator. Average NOS scores were tabulated and are shown in Table 3.
Statistical analysis
Continuous data are presented as the mean difference. Dichotomous data are presented as proportions (OR), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical heterogeneity amongst studies was evaluated using the Chi-square test (Cochrane Q test) followed by the chi-square statistic. Cochrane Q, was used to calculate I-squared values according to the equation: I2 = ((Q-df)/Q) x100%. A chi-square p value ≤0.1 was considered as significant heterogeneity. I2 values ≥ 50% were indicative of high heterogeneity. The fixed effect model for the meta-analysis was used if no heterogeneity was present. The random effect DerSimonian-Liard meta-analysis model was used when significant heterogeneity was observed. RevMan (RevMan 5.4.1) and Jamovi software were used to perform the meta-analyses as previously described [37, 38].
Results
Search output
Combination of the search terms “sickle cell disease” and “infertility” and “hydroxyurea” yielded 33 papers for assessment. Combination of the search terms “sickle cell disease” and “fertility” and “hydroxyurea” yielded 40 papers. Combination of the terms “sickle cell anaemia” and “hydroxyurea” and “infertility” yielded 26 papers. Combination of terms “sickle cell disease” and “hydroxycarbamide” and “infertility” yielded 34 papers. Combination of the terms “sickle cell anaemia” and “hydroxycarbamide” and “infertility” yielded 27 papers. Combination of the terms “sickle cell anaemia” and “hydroxycarbamide” and “ovarian reserve” yielded 7 papers for review. A total of 167 articles were initially retrieved from PubMed and EMBASE. After applying the exclusion criteria, the full texts of 34 potentially relevant studies were reviewed. A total of 26 were excluded due to lack of relevant research (n = 12), non-human research (n = 4), not original research (n = 6), case reports (n = 3) and articles not in English (n = 1). In total, 8 were finally included for meta-analysis (Fig 1; Tables 1 and 2).
Quality assessment of studies
A meta-analysis was performed to report the outcomes of HU therapy on fertility parameters in SCD patients. This included information from four cohort studies for males encompassing 205 patients [25, 35, 39, 40] (Table 1) and four cohort studies on females assessing 149 individuals [41–43] (Table 2). Three of the male studies were deemed to be of high quality, with scores ≥ 7 on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [25, 39, 40] (NOS; Table 3). One study was deemed moderate quality due to the lack of follow-up [35]. Of the female studies, three were deemed high quality [41, 43]. The study by George and colleagues (2022) was deemed low quality due to limited external controls and comparison of cohorts [42]. Collectively, the available pooled data regarding female fertility outcomes were limited, but sufficient to perform a meta-analysis of AMH levels and the percentage of patients who had diminished ovarian reserve as a measure of the effects of HU on fertility. All four female studies used serum AMH as a measurement for ovarian reserve [41–43]. Additionally, two of the studies also tested for serum levels of Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) with one using serum FSH for the purpose of classifying women with premature ovarian failure once serum FSH levels are >40 IU/L [42, 43]. Although these studies did not report the phase of menstrual cycle at which the tests were performed, serum AMH levels do not differ across the menstrual cycle.
Volume of ejaculate (mL) in males studies
Pooled data from male studies showed that the overall mean difference in the volume of ejaculate (mL) was not significantly impacted by HU treatment (MD = 0.07 mL; 95% CI: [-0.29, 0.43]; p = 0.71) and (MD = -0.09 mL; 95% CI: [-1.35, 1.17]; P = 0.89) respectively (Fig 2A). Table 3 shows the quality assessment of the included studies. The fixed effect model was used for these analyses.
(A) Volume of ejaculate (mL); (B) Spermatozoa concentration (millions/mL); (C) Total sperm count (millions), (D) Initial forward motility (% of motile sperm); (E) Spermatozoa morphology (% of normal).
Spermatozoa concentration (millions/mL) in male studies
Pooled data from the mean difference from baseline showed that HU significantly reduced the concentration of spermatozoa during treatment (MD = -15.48 million/mL; 95% CI: [-20.69, -10.26]; p< 0.001). This did not recover following the cessation of HU treatment (MD = -20.09 million/mL; 95% CI: [-38.78, -1.40]; P = 0.04; Fig 2B). No overt indication of publication bias was observed with an average NOS score of 7.67 (Table 3).
Total sperm count (millions) in male studies
The overall mean difference from baseline showed that HU significantly reduced the total sperm count during treatment, which did not recover following HU cessation (MD = -105.87 million; 95% CI: [-140.61, -71.13]; P< 0.001), and (MD = -53.05 million; 95% CI: [-104.96, -1.14]; P = 0.05), respectively (Fig 2C).
Initial forward motility (% of motile) in male studies
The overall mean difference from baseline showed that HU did not significantly impact the forward motility of sperm during treatment (MD = -7.86% of motile; 95% CI: [-23.63, 7.91]; P = 0.33), or following cessation (MD = 0.80% of motile; 95% CI: [-38.78, -1.40]; P = 0.04), respectively. pooled studies were not homogeneous for those currently receiving HU therapy (P = 0.002; I2 = 83%, Fig 2D).
Spermatozoa morphology (% of normal) in male studies
The overall mean difference from baseline showed that HU treatment did not significantly impact initial forward motility during- (MD = 0.73% of normal; 95% CI: [-21.37, 22.83]; P = 0.95) or after treatment (MD = -2.76% of normal; 95% CI: [-9.63, 4.11]; P = 0.43). Pooled studies were not homogeneous for the HU treatment subgroup (P = 0.001; I2 = 91%), Fig 2E).
Anti-Müllerian hormone in female studies
The mean AMH in SCD patients at baseline is ~7.6 pmol/l compared with 13.4 pmol/l in healthy patients aged 35–36 years (p<0.001) [44]. HU treatment is also independently associated with low AMH values (beta = 0.001, 95% CI -0.002 to 0.000; P = 0.006) [41]. Our analyses supported these data, as SCD patients had a significantly higher chance of low AMH values compared to age-matched control groups (OR 2.6 (CI 1.1–6.5, P = 0.02). Three of the four studies were of high quality (Table 3). Using these data, a meta-analysis of proportions was performed using a DerSimonian-Liard meta-analysis model. Following HU treatment, pooled mean values of AMH were 1.83 (95% CI [1.42, 2.56]; Fig 3A) which were below the normal range (0.256–6.345) for the mean age of the cohort (mean age = 19.17 years; normal AMH values for 19–29 years (13.1–53.8). This suggested that HU is associated with reduced AMH levels in female SCD patients.
(A) Mean difference in anti-Müllerian hormone levels; (B) Proportion of patients with normal ovarian reserves; (C) Proportion of patients with diminished ovarian reserves.
Ovarian function
During and after HU treatment, a total of 72.2% of patients showed normal ovarian reserves (95% CI [42%, 89%]). The remainder (18.8%) showed diminished reserves (95% CI [11%, 43%]) Fig 3B, highlighting a significant negative impact on fertility in females.
Discussion
Clinical records of patients with SCD (haemoglobin SS genotype) have identified gender-related differences in disease progression, independent of treatment modalities [45]. These include the frequency of pain crises, infections and cardiovascular issues. These are attributed to hormonal variations between males and females after puberty [46–49]. Gender is therefore a valuable factor in the risk stratification of SCD at diagnosis, with the possibility to guide therapeutic decisions [45].
HU has many characteristics of an ideal drug for SCD [10, 50–60], but concerns regarding adverse effects on fertility have persisted [25, 31, 35, 39–44, 61–64]. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the impact of HU on fertility was comparable in male and female SCD patients. This was important to understand as differences in treatment responses and adverse events of drugs between genders are not uncommon and have been documented for chemotherapeutics, anti-depressants and irritable bowel syndrome medications [65].
Infertility is defined in as a failure to conceive after 12 months of unprotected heterosexual intercourse. Semen and ovarian reserve are used to assess fertility and to predict the success of fertility preserving interventions. Based on our findings and as a precaution, such interventions may be required for HU-treated SCD patients, inclusive of sperm and ovarian fertility preservation options (in patients of an applicable age). The pooled effects suggested that in males, HU negatively influenced the concentration of spermatozoa during treatment and after cessation. This led to diminished total sperm counts. In females, the pooled effects suggested that HU treatment impacted the mean AMH levels and normal ovarian reserves in some patients. This suggests that HU impacts seminal fluid parameters in males and reduces ovarian reserves to a significant level in SCD patients.
Fertility counselling for SCD patients involves complex decision-making and the discussion of side-effects. Key factors that should be addressed include methods for fertility preservation, pregnancy possibilities/outcomes and infertility treatment [66]. Despite the known risks of HU for fertility, assisted reproductive technologies remain largely unavailable to SCD patients [67]. Based on our pooled analyses, counsellor’s should work with both genders exposed to HU and fully inform them regarding its long-term impact. The importance of this is highlighted by the limited recovery observed upon the cessation of HU in the limited number of studies assessed.
To-date it has been unclear whether male and female patients have different risk factors that impact fertility following HU therapy. Our analyses most importantly highlights how education regarding common infertility risks factors must be addressed alongside disease- and treatment- associated fertility risks, and is of equal importance in both genders. Full education can avoid the possibility that adults with SCD refuse treatment due to infertility concerns [67–69].
Study limitations
In males, prior to the introduction of HU treatment, patients had abnormal sperm values related to SCD itself. Similarly, female patients with SCD had lower levels of AMH in comparison to controls. This may have influenced the outcomes to HU therapy. In some studies, the possibility of determining whether HU was used at the time of AMH measurement were unclear. Subjects were therefore classed as receiving HU if they were “taking” or “ever took” the therapy. The number of relevant studies was also small (n = 4 males and n = 4 females), limiting heterogeneity. The actual probability of full recovery after HU therapy was not possible to document and requires more detailed investigation. Collectively, this highlights the need for long-term multi-centric studies using consistent HU doses and outcome assessments to fully understand the impact of HU in SCD patients.
Conclusions
Fertility preservation remains an important consideration for individuals with SCD receiving HU, who may face reproductive challenges. Our findings suggest that the use of HU for SCD impacts seminal fluid parameters in males and diminishes AMH and ovarian reserves in females. Based on this finding, it is the opinion of the authors that fertility preservation counselling should be considered in patients with SCD in both genders of reproductive age prior to HU therapy. Increased knowledge of fertility in both males and females following the cessation of HU therapy is now urgently required given the limited recovery observed and lack of available data to fully document recovery. Longitudinal post-fertility care based on these findings should now be recommended to all HU treated SCD patients.
References
- 1. Kato GJ, Piel FB, Reid CD, et al. Sickle cell disease. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4:18010. pmid:29542687
- 2. Kavanagh PL, Fasipe TA, Wun T. Sickle Cell Disease: A Review. JAMA. 2022;328(1):57–68. pmid:35788790
- 3. Zhang D, Xu C, Manwani D, Frenette PS. Neutrophils, platelets, and inflammatory pathways at the nexus of sickle cell disease pathophysiology. Blood. 2016;127(7):801–809. pmid:26758915
- 4.
Steinberg M. Pathophysiology of sickle cell disease. UpToDate. Waltham, MA: UpToDate; 2023.
- 5. Esoh K, Wonkam-Tingang E, Wonkam A. Sickle cell disease in sub-Saharan Africa: transferable strategies for prevention and care. Lancet Haematol. 2021;8(10):e744–e755. pmid:34481550
- 6. El-Hazmi MA, Al-Hazmi AM, Warsy AS. Sickle cell disease in Middle East Arab countries. Indian J Med Res. 2011;134(5):597–610. pmid:22199098
- 7. Rees DC, Brousse VA. Sickle cell disease: Status with particular reference to India. Indian J Med Res. 2016;143(6):675–677. pmid:27748289
- 8. Collaborators GBDSCD. Global, regional, and national prevalence and mortality burden of sickle cell disease, 2000–2021: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Haematol. 2023. pmid:37331373
- 9. Orringer EP, Parker JC. Hydroxyurea and sickle cell disease. Hematol Pathol. 1992;6(4):171–178. pmid:1283391
- 10. Rodgers GP, Dover GJ, Noguchi CT, Schechter AN, Nienhuis AW. Hematologic responses of patients with sickle cell disease to treatment with hydroxyurea. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(15):1037–1045. pmid:1690857
- 11. Rogers ZR. Hydroxyurea therapy for diverse pediatric populations with sickle cell disease. Semin Hematol. 1997;34(3 Suppl 3):42–47. pmid:9317200
- 12. Steinberg MH, Barton F, Castro O, et al. Effect of hydroxyurea on mortality and morbidity in adult sickle cell anemia: risks and benefits up to 9 years of treatment. JAMA. 2003;289(13):1645–1651. pmid:12672732
- 13. Thornburg CD, Files BA, Luo Z, et al. Impact of hydroxyurea on clinical events in the BABY HUG trial. Blood. 2012;120(22):4304–4310; quiz 4448. pmid:22915643
- 14. Ohene-Frempong K, Smith-Whitley K. Use of hydroxyurea in children with sickle cell disease: what comes next? Semin Hematol. 1997;34(3 Suppl 3):30–41. pmid:9317199
- 15. Elghazaly AA, Aljatham AA, Khan AM, et al. Patterns of prescribing hydroxyurea for sickle cell disease patients from a central hospital, Saudi Arabia. Hematol Rep. 2019;11(1):7860. pmid:30915204
- 16. Giulietti G, Zama D, Conti F, et al. In-Depth Immunological Typization of Children with Sickle Cell Disease: A Preliminary Insight into Its Plausible Correlation with Clinical Course and Hydroxyurea Therapy. J Clin Med. 2022;11(11). pmid:35683425
- 17. Grigg A. Effect of hydroxyurea on sperm count, motility and morphology in adult men with sickle cell or myeloproliferative disease. Intern Med J. 2007;37(3):190–192. pmid:17316339
- 18. Karkoska K, Todd K, Niss O, et al. Implementation of near-universal hydroxyurea uptake among children with sickle cell anemia: A single-center experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2021;68(6):e29008. pmid:33742510
- 19. Kunz JB, Schlotmann A, Daubenbuchel A, et al. Benefits of a Disease Management Program for Sickle Cell Disease in Germany 2011–2019: The Increased Use of Hydroxyurea Correlates with a Reduced Frequency of Acute Chest Syndrome. J Clin Med. 2021;10(19). pmid:34640578
- 20. Oldham M, Conrey A, Pittman C, et al. Computer Algorithm-Based Hydroxyurea Dosing Facilitates Titration to Maximum Tolerated Dose in Sickle Cell Anemia. J Clin Pharmacol. 2021;61(1):41–51. pmid:32673439
- 21. Power-Hays A, Ware RE. Effective use of hydroxyurea for sickle cell anemia in low-resource countries. Curr Opin Hematol. 2020;27(3):172–180. pmid:32205588
- 22. Reeves SL, Jary HK, Gondhi JP, Raphael JL, Lisabeth LD, Dombkowski KJ. Hydroxyurea use among children with sickle cell anemia. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019;66(6):e27721. pmid:30900800
- 23. Tang AY, Zhou M, Maillis AN, Lai KW, Lane PA, Snyder AB. Trends in blood transfusion, hydroxyurea use, and iron overload among children with sickle cell disease enrolled in Medicaid, 2004–2019. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2023;70(3):e30152. pmid:36579749
- 24. de Montalembert M. [Hydroxyurea treatment in patients affected with sickle cell anemia: efficacy and safety]. Transfus Clin Biol. 2008;15(1–2):34–38.
- 25. Berthaut I, Guignedoux G, Kirsch-Noir F, et al. Influence of sickle cell disease and treatment with hydroxyurea on sperm parameters and fertility of human males. Haematologica. 2008;93(7):988–993. pmid:18508803
- 26. DeBaun MR. Hydroxyurea therapy contributes to infertility in adult men with sickle cell disease: a review. Expert Rev Hematol. 2014;7(6):767–773. pmid:25242414
- 27. Kroner BL, Hankins JS, Pugh N, et al. Pregnancy outcomes with hydroxyurea use in women with sickle cell disease. Am J Hematol. 2022;97(5):603–612. pmid:35142007
- 28. Gohal GA, Gosadi IM, Cittana Iqbal BA, et al. Utilization of Hydroxyurea Among Patients Diagnosed with Sickle Cell Disease in Jazan, Saudi Arabia. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022;16:3059–3067. pmid:36387052
- 29. Jones KM, Niaz MS, Brooks CM, et al. Adverse effects of a clinically relevant dose of hydroxyurea used for the treatment of sickle cell disease on male fertility endpoints. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(3):1124–1144. pmid:19440437
- 30. Lukusa AK, Vermylen C. Use of hydroxyurea from childhood to adult age in sickle cell disease: semen analysis. Haematologica. 2008;93(11):e67; discussion e68. pmid:18978293
- 31. Lukusa AK, Vermylen C, Vanabelle B, et al. Bone marrow transplantation or hydroxyurea for sickle cell anemia: long-term effects on semen variables and hormone profiles. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2009;26(4):186–194. pmid:19437321
- 32. Nevitt SJ, Jones AP, Howard J. Hydroxyurea (hydroxycarbamide) for sickle cell disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(4):CD002202. pmid:28426137
- 33. Pandey A, Kaur H, Borah S, et al. A systematic review on hydroxyurea therapy for sickle cell disease in India. Indian J Med Res. 2022;156(2):299–311. pmid:36629190
- 34. Rankine-Mullings AE, Nevitt SJ. Hydroxyurea (hydroxycarbamide) for sickle cell disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;9(9):CD002202. pmid:36047926
- 35. Sahoo LK, Kullu BK, Patel S, et al. Study of Seminal Fluid Parameters and Fertility of Male Sickle Cell Disease Patients and Potential Impact of Hydroxyurea Treatment. J Assoc Physicians India. 2017;65(6):22–25. pmid:28782309
- 36. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–1012. pmid:19631508
- 37. Gadelha IP, Aquino PS, Balsells MMD, et al. Quality of life of high risk pregnant women during prenatal care. Rev Bras Enferm. 2020;73 Suppl 5:e20190595. pmid:32785449
- 38. Singla R, Garg A, Surana V, Aggarwal S, Gupta G, Singla S. Vitamin B12 Deficiency is Endemic in Indian Population: A Perspective from North India. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2019;23(2):211–214. pmid:31161105
- 39. Berthaut I, Bachir D, Kotti S, et al. Adverse effect of hydroxyurea on spermatogenesis in patients with sickle cell anemia after 6 months of treatment. Blood. 2017;130(21):2354–2356. pmid:28972009
- 40. Joseph L JC, Manceau S, Chalas C, Arnaud A, Kamdem A, Pondarré C, Habibi A, Bernaudin F, Allali S, Montalembert MD, Boutonnat-Faucher B, Arlet JB, Koehl B, Cavazzana M, Ribeil JA, Lionnet F, Berthaut I, Brousse V. Effect of hydroxyurea exposure before puberty on sperm parameters in males with sickle cell disease. Blood. 2021;137:826–829. pmid:32976551
- 41. Pecker LH, Hussain S, Christianson MS, Lanzkron S. Hydroxycarbamide exposure and ovarian reserve in women with sickle cell disease in the Multicenter Study of Hydroxycarbamide. Br J Haematol. 2020;191(5):880–887. pmid:32712966
- 42. George SA, Lai KW, Lewis RW, Bryson EW, Haight AE, Meacham LR. Comparison of Anti-Mullerian Hormone Levels Pre- and Post-Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Pediatric and Adolescent Females with Sickle Cell Disease. Transplant Cell Ther. 2022;28(11):770 e771–770 e776. pmid:35995392
- 43. Elchuri SV, Williamson RS, Clark Brown R, et al. The effects of hydroxyurea and bone marrow transplant on Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels in females with sickle cell anemia. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2015;55(1):56–61.
- 44. Kopeika J, Oyewo A, Punnialingam S, et al. Ovarian reserve in women with sickle cell disease. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0213024. pmid:30794713
- 45. Ceglie G, Di Mauro M, Tarissi De Jacobis I, et al. Gender-Related Differences in Sickle Cell Disease in a Pediatric Cohort: A Single-Center Retrospective Study. Front Mol Biosci. 2019;6:140. pmid:31867340
- 46. Masese RV, Bulgin D, Knisely MR, et al. Sex-based differences in the manifestations and complications of sickle cell disease: Report from the Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium. PLoS One. 2021;16(10):e0258638. pmid:34714833
- 47. Adegoke SA, Okeniyi JA, Akintunde AA. Electrocardiographic abnormalities and dyslipidaemic syndrome in children with sickle cell anaemia. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2016;27(1):16–20. pmid:26301945
- 48. Akodu SO, Diaku-Akinwumi IN, Kehinde OA, Njokanma OF. Serum iron status of under-five children with sickle cell anaemia in lagos, Nigeria. Anemia. 2013;2013:254765. pmid:24288599
- 49. Akodu SO, Njokanma OF, AdeoluKehinde O. Erythrocyte indices in Pre-school Nigerian Children with Sickle Cell Anaemia in Steady State. Int J Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Res. 2015;9(1):5–9. pmid:25802694
- 50. Ferreira WA, Jr., Chweih H, Lanaro C, et al. Beneficial Effects of Soluble Guanylyl Cyclase Stimulation and Activation in Sickle Cell Disease Are Amplified by Hydroxyurea: In Vitro and In Vivo Studies. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2020;374(3):469–478. pmid:32631869
- 51. Adekile AD, Gupta R, Al-Khayat A, Mohammed A, Atyani S, Thomas D. Risk of avascular necrosis of the femoral head in children with sickle cell disease on hydroxyurea: MRI evaluation. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019;66(2):e27503. pmid:30345708
- 52. Ambrose EE, Kidenya BR, Charles M, et al. Outcomes of Hydroxyurea Accessed via Various Means and Barriers Affecting Its Usage Among Children with Sickle Cell Anaemia in North-Western Tanzania. J Blood Med. 2023;14:37–47. pmid:36712580
- 53. De Franceschi L. Pathophisiology of sickle cell disease and new drugs for the treatment. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis. 2009;1(1):e2009024. pmid:21415994
- 54. Man Y, Kucukal E, An R, Bode A, Little JA, Gurkan UA. Standardized microfluidic assessment of red blood cell-mediated microcapillary occlusion: Association with clinical phenotype and hydroxyurea responsiveness in sickle cell disease. Microcirculation. 2021;28(2):e12662. pmid:33025653
- 55. Phillips K, Healy L, Smith L, Keenan R. Hydroxyurea therapy in UK children with sickle cell anaemia: A single-centre experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018;65(2). pmid:28988427
- 56. Schuchard SB, Lissick JR, Nickel A, et al. Hydroxyurea use in young infants with sickle cell disease. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019;66(7):e27650. pmid:30729675
- 57. Torous DK, Avlasevich S, Bemis JC, et al. Lack of hydroxyurea-associated mutagenesis in pediatric sickle cell disease patients. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2023;64(3):167–175. pmid:36841969
- 58. Allard P, Alhaj N, Lobitz S, et al. Genetic modifiers of fetal hemoglobin affect the course of sickle cell disease in patients treated with hydroxyurea. Haematologica. 2022;107(7):1577–1588. pmid:34706496
- 59. Chenou F, Hounkpe BW, Domingos IF, et al. Effect of hydroxyurea therapy on intravascular hemolysis and endothelial dysfunction markers in sickle cell anemia patients. Ann Hematol. 2021;100(11):2669–2676. pmid:34453189
- 60. Roumenina LT, Chadebech P, Bodivit G, et al. Complement activation in sickle cell disease: Dependence on cell density, hemolysis and modulation by hydroxyurea therapy. Am J Hematol. 2020;95(5):456–464. pmid:31990387
- 61. Elchuri SV, Williamson Lewis R, Quarmyne MO, Haight AE, Cottrell HN, Meacham LR. Longitudinal Description of Gonadal Function in Sickle-cell Patients Treated With Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Using Alkylator-based Conditioning Regimens. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2020;42(7):e575–e582. pmid:32205784
- 62. Habibi A, Cannas G, Bartolucci P, et al. Outcomes of Pregnancy in Sickle Cell Disease Patients: Results from the Prospective ESCORT-HU Cohort Study. Biomedicines. 2023;11(2). pmid:36831132
- 63. Pecker LH, Hussain S, Mahesh J, Varadhan R, Christianson MS, Lanzkron S. Diminished ovarian reserve in young women with sickle cell anemia. Blood. 2022;139(7):1111–1115. pmid:34864892
- 64. Portela JMD, Heckmann L, Wistuba J, et al. Development and Disease-Dependent Dynamics of Spermatogonial Subpopulations in Human Testicular Tissues. J Clin Med. 2020;9(1). pmid:31947706
- 65. Whitley H, Lindsey W. Sex-based differences in drug activity. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80(11):1254–1258. pmid:19961138
- 66. Pecker LH, Oteng-Ntim E, Nero A, et al. Expecting more: the case for incorporating fertility services into comprehensive sickle cell disease care. Lancet Haematol. 2023;10(3):e225–e234. pmid:36708736
- 67. Carrithers B, Raja M, Gemmill A, et al. Knowledge of fertility and perception of fertility treatment among adults with sickle cell disease (KNOW FERTILITY). Front Glob Womens Health. 2023;4:1191064. pmid:37360321
- 68. Creary S, Liles SM, Colton ZA, et al. Experiences and outcomes of fertility testing in male adolescents with sickle cell disease. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2024;71(4):e30848. pmid:38200547
- 69. Nahata L, Quinn GP, Strouse JJ, Creary SE. Addressing fertility in adolescent boys with sickle cell disease: emerging clinical and ethical dilemmas. Blood Adv. 2023;7(18):5351–5353. pmid:37155994