MATERIALS AND METHODS: READT (real-life evaluation of the effect of ADT in prostate cancer patients in Asia) was a multi-center, prospective observational study involving six sites across four Asian populations. We enrolled eligible prostate cancer patients, who opted for ADT alone or in combination without prior neoadjuvant or adjuvant ADT within 12 months. The EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L) utility index scores and visual analog scale (VAS) were evaluated at baseline, month 6 and month 12.
RESULTS: A total of 504 patients were recruited into READT between September 2016 and May 2020 with 52.9% diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. The EQ-5D-5L was evaluable in 442/504 (87.7%) of patients. Overall baseline EQ-5D-5L utility index score was 0.924 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.876-1.000). We observed a statistically significant difference in baseline EQ-5D-5L utility index score among different populations with a median EQ-5D-5L utility index score of 1 for Taiwan & Hong Kong, 0.897 for China and 0.838 for Malaysia. Similar trend was observed throughout multiple treatment time-points. Stage IV prostate cancer were significantly associated with a lower baseline EQ-5D-5L utility index score compared to stage I-III prostate cancer, producing a median disutility value of -0.080. Participants had a high median VAS (80, IQR 70-90), indicating good overall health on average during ADT initiation.
CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the differences in health state utility index scores among various Asian prostate cancer patients receiving ADT at real-world setting. Our findings will be informative and useful in cost-effectiveness evaluation and policy decision making.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A online RCB webinar was designed, comprising two presentations in research design and systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA). An online survey using validated published questionnaires assessed the three above-stated objectives. Paired t-test compared the means of the pre- and post-webinar scores. Subgroup analysis was performed on the participants' professional background, sex, and number of years in practice.
RESULTS: A total of 237 participants attended the webinar, of which 184 completed the survey and are included in the current analysis. Male participants were about double the females and 60.9% were from Asian countries. The most common research enablers were to publish scientific papers (14.8%) and to develop research (14.7%) or new skills (12.7%). The most common barriers were the lack of training in research (12.4%), training in research software (11.8%), and time for research (11.8%). Satisfaction with the webinar was considerably high (86.3%-88.4%) for the different features of the webinar. Compared to the pre-webinar knowledge level, there were significant improvements in participants' research knowledge acquisition after the webinar in terms of the total score for the quiz (13.7±4.31 vs. 21.5±4.7), as well as the scores for the study design (7.12±2.37 vs. 11.5±2.69) and SR/MA sessions (6.63±2.63 vs. 9.93±2.49) (p<0.001 for each).
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and non-clinical andrology webinar attendees recognized the importance of research and exhibited a range of research skills, knowledge and experience. There were significant improvements in the participants' knowledge and understanding of the components of scientific research. We propose an RCB model that can be implemented and further modeled by organizations with similar academic research goals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Scopus database was used to retrieve related articles and the top 100 identified based on citation rate.
RESULTS: The articles were published in 56 journals between 1995 and 2019 with a median (interquartile range) citation score of 17 (5-62). Among the top 100 articles, 69 were clinical studies, which included controlled and blinded (33.33%), prospective (27.54%), randomized-controlled trials (26.09%), uncontrolled (11.59%), and retrospective (1.45%) studies. In addition to conventional semen parameters, advanced sperm function tests such as oxidative stress (51%) and sperm DNA damage (23%) were reported. Pregnancy rate (33%) was found to be the most reported reproductive outcome. Antioxidant therapy was mostly investigated in male cohorts with sperm abnormalities such as asthenozoospermia (28%) and clinical conditions such as idiopathic male infertility (20%), varicocele/varicocelectomy (17%) and general male infertility (16%).
CONCLUSIONS: The most influential publications on antioxidants and male infertility were identified for the first time in the literature. This will serve as a reliable source of information for researchers and clinicians alike.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: These modules included manual semen analysis, sperm morphology and ancillary semen tests (testing for leukocytospermia, sperm vitality, and anti-sperm antibody screening). The virtual format consisted of lecture presentations featuring laboratory protocols with corresponding video demonstrations of routine techniques and best practices. Practical scenarios, troubleshooting, and clinical interpretation of laboratory results were also discussed. At the end of each module, an optional multiple choice question test was held as a prerequisite to obtain certification on the topics presented. Course quality was assessed using participant responses collected via online surveys.
RESULTS: The digital delivery methods used were found to have largely or completely met the participants' expectations for all questions (>85%). The majority (>87%) of the participants either strongly agreed or agreed that the course content was well-structured with appropriate depth, and that their overall expectations of the course had been met.
CONCLUSIONS: This training format appears to be a realistic teaching option to freely share highly specialized expertise and technical knowledge with participants from anywhere in the world with varying levels of competency or experience.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to take part in a global online survey on SDF clinical practices. This was conducted following the CHERRIES checklist criteria. The responses were compared to professional society guideline recommendations related to SDF and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations on indications for SDF testing were then formulated, and the Delphi method was used to reach consensus.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 experts from 55 countries. Almost 75% of respondents test for SDF in all or some men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, 39% order it routinely in the work-up of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), and 62.2% investigate SDF in smokers. While 47% of reproductive urologists test SDF to support the decision for varicocele repair surgery when conventional semen parameters are normal, significantly fewer general urologists (23%; p=0.008) do the same. Nearly 70% would assess SDF before assisted reproductive technologies (ART), either always or for certain conditions. Recurrent ART failure is a common indication for SDF testing. Very few society recommendations were found regarding SDF testing.
CONCLUSIONS: This article presents the largest global survey on the indications for SDF testing in infertile men, and demonstrates diverse practices. Furthermore, it highlights the paucity of professional society guideline recommendations. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online global survey on clinical practices related to SDF was disseminated to reproductive clinicians, according to the CHERRIES checklist criteria. Management protocols for various conditions associated with SDF were captured and compared to the relevant recommendations in professional society guidelines and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations and consensus on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF were then formulated and adapted using the Delphi method.
RESULTS: A total of 436 experts from 55 different countries submitted responses. As an initial approach, 79.1% of reproductive experts recommend lifestyle modifications for infertile men with elevated SDF, and 76.9% prescribe empiric antioxidants. Regarding antioxidant duration, 39.3% recommend 4-6 months and 38.1% recommend 3 months. For men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, and couples experiencing recurrent miscarriages associated with elevated SDF, most respondents refer to ART 6 months after failure of conservative and empiric medical management. Infertile men with clinical varicocele, normal conventional semen parameters, and elevated SDF are offered varicocele repair immediately after diagnosis by 31.4%, and after failure of antioxidants and conservative measures by 40.9%. Sperm selection techniques and testicular sperm extraction are also management options for couples undergoing ART. For most questions, heterogenous practices were demonstrated.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents the results of a large global survey on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF and reveals a lack of consensus among clinicians. Furthermore, it demonstrates the scarcity of professional society guidelines in this regard and attempts to highlight the relevant evidence. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-P and MOOSE guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS model (Population: infertile male patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: varicocele repair; Comparison: intra-person before-after varicocele repair; Outcome: conventional semen parameters; Study type: randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational and case-control studies).
RESULTS: Out of 1,632 screened abstracts, 351 articles (23 RCTs, 292 observational, and 36 case-control studies) were included in the quantitative analysis. The before-and-after analysis showed significant improvements in all semen parameters after varicocele repair (except sperm vitality); semen volume: standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.203, 95% CI: 0.129-0.278; p<0.001; I²=83.62%, Egger's p=0.3329; sperm concentration: SMD 1.590, 95% CI: 1.474-1.706; p<0.001; I²=97.86%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm count: SMD 1.824, 95% CI: 1.526-2.121; p<0.001; I²=97.88%, Egger's p=0.0063; total motile sperm count: SMD 1.643, 95% CI: 1.318-1.968; p<0.001; I²=98.65%, Egger's p=0.0003; progressive sperm motility: SMD 1.845, 95% CI: 1.537%-2.153%; p<0.001; I²=98.97%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm motility: SMD 1.613, 95% CI 1.467%-1.759%; p<0.001; l2=97.98%, Egger's p<0.001; sperm morphology: SMD 1.066, 95% CI 0.992%-1.211%; p<0.001; I²=97.87%, Egger's p=0.1864.
CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis is the largest to date using paired analysis on varicocele patients. In the current meta-analysis, almost all conventional semen parameters improved significantly following varicocele repair in infertile patients with clinical varicocele.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to complete an online survey on practices related to SDF diagnostic and treatment approaches. Their responses related to the technical aspects of SDF testing, current professional society guidelines, and the literature were used to generate expert recommendations via the Delphi method. Finally, challenges related to SDF that the clinicians encounter in their daily practice were captured.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 reproductive clinicians. Overall, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxyuridine triphosphate Nick-End Labeling (TUNEL) is the most commonly used assay chosen by 28.6%, followed by the sperm chromatin structure assay (24.1%), and the sperm chromatin dispersion (19.1%). The choice of the assay was largely influenced by availability (70% of respondents). A threshold of 30% was the most selected cut-off value for elevated SDF by 33.7% of clinicians. Of respondents, 53.6% recommend SDF testing after 3 to 5 days of abstinence. Although 75.3% believe SDF testing can provide an explanation for many unknown causes of infertility, the main limiting factors selected by respondents are a lack of professional society guideline recommendations (62.7%) and an absence of globally accepted references for SDF interpretation (50.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest global survey on the technical aspects of SDF testing as well as the barriers encountered by clinicians. Unified global recommendations regarding clinician implementation and standard laboratory interpretation of SDF testing are crucial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This SRMA is conducted in accordance with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. We investigated the frequency of ASA positivity in ejaculates or serum of men with varicocele as compared to men without varicocele (controls). A literature search was performed using the Scopus and PubMed databases following the Population Exposure Comparison Outcome, Study Design model. Data extracted from eligible studies were meta-analyzed and expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: Out of 151 abstracts identified during the initial screening, 6 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Using mixed antiglobulin reaction (MAR) assay, 61 out of the 153 (39.8%) patients with varicocele tested positive for ASA in their ejaculates as compared to 22 out of the 129 control subjects (17%, OR=4.34 [95% CI: 1.09-17.28]; p=0.04). Using direct or indirect immunobead test, 30 out of 60 cases diagnosed with varicocele (50%) had shown ASA positivity in their ejaculates as compared to 16 out of 104 controls (15.4%, OR=3.57 [95% CI: 0.81-15.68]; p=0.09). Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), out of 89 varicocele patients, 33 (37.1%) tested positive for serum ASA as compared to 9 out of 57 participants in the control group (15.8%, OR=7.87 [95% CI: 2.39-25.89]; p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: This SRMA indicates that ASA positivity is significantly higher among men with varicocele when tested by direct method (MAR) or indirect method (ELISA). This data suggests an immunological pathology in infertile men with varicocele and may have implications for the management of these patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, global, online survey on PE was conducted using a questionnaire developed by an international cohort of experts. Results were analyzed using R version 4.1.2. Additionally, expert recommendations were formulated using a modified Delphi method.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 264 participants from 41 countries. The majority of respondents were below the age of 45 years and were urologists focusing on andrology and sexual health. PE diagnosis was primarily based (by 61.5%) on an intravaginal ejaculatory latency time of less than one minute. Lifelong PE was the most common category reported (47.7%), and most respondents (84.2%) observed ante-portas PE in less than 25% of cases. Distinguishing PE from erectile dysfunction was challenging for many respondents (60.7%). Diabetes mellitus was the most common comorbidity (17.1%). Pharmacological therapy was the most common treatment method (34.3%), with dapoxetine being the most preferred medication (37.9%). Surgical methods were infrequently used. Emerging treatments like hyaluronic acid gel glans augmentation were favored by only 11.7%. Patient satisfaction was the primary criterion for successful PE treatment (55.9%), and cost was a significant concern for many (35.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: This global survey highlights significant diversity in the diagnostic and treatment strategies for PE. Standard diagnostic criteria are generally accepted, off-label medication is widely used in therapy, and the role of surgery is still controversial. A multi-modal therapy approach, tailored to the patient's specific needs, is favored. Further research into the neurobiology of PE and the development of effective and safe options is crucial for improving the management of PE.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 56-question online survey covering various aspects of the evaluation and management of NOA was sent to specialists around the globe. This paper analyzes the results of the second half of the survey dealing with the management of NOA. Results have been compared to current guidelines, and expert recommendations have been provided using a Delphi process.
RESULTS: Participants from 49 countries submitted 336 valid responses. Hormonal therapy for 3 to 6 months was suggested before surgical sperm retrieval (SSR) by 29.6% and 23.6% of participants for normogonadotropic hypogonadism and hypergonadotropic hypogonadism respectively. The SSR rate was reported as 50.0% by 26.0% to 50.0% of participants. Interestingly, 46.0% reported successful SSR in <10% of men with Klinefelter syndrome and 41.3% routinely recommended preimplantation genetic testing. Varicocele repair prior to SSR is recommended by 57.7%. Half of the respondents (57.4%) reported using ultrasound to identify the most vascularized areas in the testis for SSR. One-third proceed directly to microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) in every case of NOA while others use a staged approach. After a failed conventional TESE, 23.8% wait for 3 months, while 33.1% wait for 6 months before proceeding to mTESE. The cut-off of follicle-stimulating hormone for positive SSR was reported to be 12-19 IU/mL by 22.5% of participants and 20-40 IU/mL by 27.8%, while 31.8% reported no upper limit.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest survey to date on the real-world medical and surgical management of NOA by reproductive experts. It demonstrates a diverse practice pattern and highlights the need for evidence-based international consensus guidelines.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 39-question survey was developed by senior Global Andrology Forum (GAF) experts to comprehensively cover clinical aspects of RT. This was distributed globally via a secure online Google Form to ED specialists through the GAF website, international professional societies, and social media, the responses were analyzed and presented for frequencies as percentages. Consensus on expert recommendations for RT use was achieved using the Delphi method.
RESULTS: Out of 479 respondents from 62 countries, a third reported using RT for ED. The most popular treatment was low-intensity shock wave therapy (54.6%), followed by platelet-rich plasma (24.5%) and their combination (14.7%), with stem cell therapy being the least used (3.7%). The primary indication for RT was the refractory or adverse effects of PDE5 inhibitors, with the best effectiveness reported in middle-aged and mild-to-moderate ED patients. Respondents were confident about its overall safety, with a significant number expressing interest in RT's future use, despite pending guidelines support.
CONCLUSIONS: This inaugural global survey reveals a growing use of RT in ED treatment, showcasing its diverse clinical applications and potential for future widespread adoption. However, the lack of comprehensive evidence and clear guidelines requires further research to standardize RT practices in ED treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of the Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted using a specific query string to identify studies examining the impact of VR on ART outcomes, including fertilization rate, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss, and live-birth rate, until October 2023. Outcomes were analyzed based on the type of ART. Studies on VR in infertile men with non-obstructive azoospermia and those who underwent ART only due to female factor infertility were excluded from the study.
RESULTS: Out of 1,554 articles reviewed, only 9 met the inclusion criteria for the study. All the included articles were observational studies. The variability in study quality in the included literature resulted in a moderate overall risk of bias. Data analysis showed that for intrauterine insemination, there was no difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42, 2.45; p=0.97). However, for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), men with VR showed a significant improvement in fertilization rate (mean difference 10.9, 95% CI: 5.94, 15.89; p<0.01), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.78; p=0.01) and live-birth rate (OR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.45, 2.97; p<0.01), compared to men who did not undergo VR.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that VR has a positive impact on pregnancy and live birth rates after ICSI. However, biases like small sample sizes and heterogeneous populations highlight the need for larger, well-designed prospective studies to validate these findings.