AIM: The aim of this review is to analyze current data regarding options of treatment for men with hypogonadism and infertility.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: A comprehensive review of the current literature on management of infertility among hypogonadal men.
METHODS: A literature search using PubMed from 1980 to 2012 was done on articles published in the English language. The following medical subject heading terms were used: "infertility," "infertile," "hypogonadism;" "testosterone deficiency" and "men" or "male;" and "treatment" or "management."
RESULTS: The options for hypogonadal testicular failure are limited. Hormonal treatment is by and large ineffective. For secondary hypogonadism (hypogonadotropic/normogonadotropic hypogonadism), the options include gonadotropin-releasing hormone, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and anti-estrogens and aromatase inhibitors. Dopamine antagonist is indicated for prolactinoma. Artificial reproductive technique is indicated for primary testicular failure and also when medical therapy fails.
CONCLUSION: The most suitable option with the current data available is hCG with or without hMG/FSH. Testosterone supplementation should be avoided, but if they are already on it, it is still possible for a return of normal sperm production within 1 year after discontinuing testosterone. Ho CCK and Tan HM. Treatment of the hypogonadal infertile male-A review. Sex Med Rev 2013;1:42-49.
METHODS: A total of 429 respondents diagnosed with urologic cancers (prostate cancer, bladder and renal cancer) from Sarawak General Hospital and Subang Jaya Medical Centre in Malaysia were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Objective and subjective FT were measured by catastrophic health expenditure (healthcare-cost-to-income ratio greater than 40%) and the Personal Financial Well-being Scale, respectively. HRQoL was measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General 7 Items scale.
RESULTS: Objective and subjective FT were experienced by 16.1 and 47.3% of the respondents, respectively. Respondents who sought treatment at a private hospital and had out-of-pocket health expenditures were more likely to experience objective FT, after adjustment for covariates. Respondents who were female and had a monthly household income less than MYR 5000 were more likely to experience average to high subjective FT. Greater objective FT (OR = 2.75, 95% CI 1.09-6.95) and subjective FT (OR = 4.68, 95% CI 2.63-8.30) were associated with poor HRQoL.
CONCLUSIONS: The significant association between both objective and subjective FT and HRQoL highlights the importance of reducing FT among urologic cancer patients. Subjective FT was found to have a greater negative impact on HRQoL.
METHODS: This was a prospective, cross-sectional study. A total of 429 respondents diagnosed with urologic cancers (prostate, bladder and renal cancer) from Sarawak General Hospital and Subang Jaya Medical Centre in Malaysia were interviewed by using a structured questionnaire. SPB and HRQoL were measured by the Self-perceived Burden Scale and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General 7 Item Scale respectively.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Self-perceived burden was experienced by 73.2% of the respondents. Respondents who had a lower education level, a monthly household income