The adverse impact of COVID-19 on men's health.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to devastating health outcomes across the world. Initially thought to primarily affect the respiratory system, there is now clear and abundant evidence that COVID-19 can impact upon the male genitourinary system and overall men's health. In this review article, we explore the potential mechanisms by which COVID-19 specifically affects men and we review the literature examining the adverse effects of the disease on men's health. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies suggest that men are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 infection and death. COVID-19 infection has a negative impact on men's health including worsening semen parameters, potentially lower testosterone levels, and an increased risk of erectile dysfunction. SUMMARY: COVID-19 is a highly pathogenic virus that exerts adverse effects upon the male genitourinary system in myriad ways. The COVID-19 infection can impact serum testosterone, fertility, sexual function, and mental health. Fortunately, the COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective in preventing COVID-19 infection and many of these sequelae.

Testosterone replacement therapy in the era of telemedicine.

The events of the 2019 SARS-CoV2 virus pandemic have all but ensured that telemedicine will remain an important aspect of patient care delivery. As health technologies evolve, so must physician practices. Currently, there is limited data on the management of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in the era of telemedicine. This review aims to explore the potential benefits and pitfalls of TRT management via telemedicine. We also propose a theoretical framework for TRT management via telemedicine. Telemedicine provides patients and physicians with a new mechanism for American Urological Association guideline-concordant TRT management that can increase patient access to care and provide a safe space for men who may otherwise not have been comfortable with in-person evaluation. However, there are significant limitations to the use of telemedicine for the management of TRT, including the inability to perform a physical exam, inability to administer specific medications, technological barriers, data security, and medical-legal considerations, and both patients and providers should engage in shared decision making before pursuing this approach. Understanding and acknowledging the potential pitfalls of telemedicine for TRT management will enable both patients and providers to achieve optimal outcomes and satisfaction.

Perspectives of Residency Applicants and Program Directors on the Role of Social Media in the 2021 Urology Residency Match.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a survey assessing the use of, attitudes towards, and perceived utility of social media (SoMe) in the 2021 urology residency match. METHODS: We distributed surveys to urology residency applicants and program directors (PDs) via the Urology Match 2021 Google Spreadsheet and email. The survey collected demographic information as well as SoMe activity, perceived pressure to use SoMe, match results, and attitudes regarding the utility of SoMe in the match process. RESULTS: A total of 108/528 (20%) applicants registered for the 2021 match and 61/142 (43%) PDs completed the survey. More applicants than PDs felt that SoMe helped them gain better insight into residency programs or applicants, respectively. Fewer applicants than PDs felt that SoMe activity provided a benefit to them in the match process. No significant relationship was found between SoMe viewing frequency, posting frequency, or tweetorial use with match outcomes. The majority of PDs believed that SoMe played a more important role in the 2021 match process than previous years while 15% and 12% reported that an applicant's SoMe activity helped or hurt the chances of matching to their program respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SoMe, particularly Twitter, was widely used in the 2021 match by both applicants and PDs. A majority of applicants and PDs believed that SoMe use aided them in some way in the match process, yet there was no relationship between the volume or type of applicant SoMe activity and match outcomes.

Telemedicine Usage Among Urologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, urology was one of the specialties with the lowest rates of telemedicine and videoconferencing use. Common barriers to the implementation of telemedicine included a lack of technological literacy, concerns with reimbursement, and resistance to changes in the workplace. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic declared in March 2020, the delivery of urological services globally has quickly shifted to telemedicine to account for the mass clinical, procedural, and operative cancellations, inadequate personal protective equipment, and shortage of personnel. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate current telemedicine usage by urologists, urologists' perceptions on the necessity of in-person clinic appointments, the usability of telemedicine, and the current barriers to its implementation. METHODS: We conducted a global, cross-sectional, web-based survey to investigate the use of telemedicine before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists' perceived usability of telemedicine was assessed using a modified Delphi approach to create questions based on a modified version of the validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). For the purposes of this study, telemedicine was defined as video calls only. RESULTS: A total of 620 urologists from 58 different countries and 6 continents participated in the survey. Prior to COVID-19, 15.8% (n=98) of urologists surveyed were using telemedicine in their clinical practices; during the pandemic, that proportion increased to 46.1% (n=283). Of the urologists without telemedicine experience, interest in telemedicine usage increased from 43.7% (n=139) to 80.8% (n=257) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among urologists that used telemedicine during the pandemic, 80.9% (n=244) were interested in continuing to use it in their practice. The three most commonly used platforms were Zoom, Doxy.me, and Epic, and the top three barriers to implementing telemedicine were patients' lack of technological comprehension, patients' lack of access to the required technology, and reimbursement concerns. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to quantify the use, usability, and pervading interest in telemedicine among urologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the face of this pandemic, urologists' usage of telemedicine nearly tripled, demonstrating their ability to adopt and adapt telemedicine into their practices, but barriers involving the technology itself are still preventing many from utilizing it despite increasing interest.

A Global Survey on the Impact of COVID-19 on Urological Services.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on urological services in different geographical areas is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the global impact of COVID-19 on urological providers and the provision of urological patient care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from March 30, 2020 to April 7, 2020. A 55-item questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of urological services. Target respondents were practising urologists, urology trainees, and urology nurses/advanced practice providers. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in urological services, which was further stratified by the geographical location, degree of outbreak, and nature and urgency of urological conditions. The secondary outcome was the duration of delay in urological services. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1004 participants responded to our survey, and they were mostly based in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Worldwide, 41% of the respondents reported that their hospital staff members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 27% reported personnel shortage, and 26% had to be deployed to take care of COVID-19 patients. Globally, only 33% of the respondents felt that they were given adequate personal protective equipment, and many providers expressed fear of going to work (47%). It was of concerning that 13% of the respondents were advised not to wear a surgical face mask for the fear of scaring their patients, and 21% of the respondents were advised not to discuss COVID-19 issues or concerns on media. COVID-19 had a global impact on the cut-down of urological services, including outpatient clinic appointments, outpatient investigations and procedures, and urological surgeries. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak. On average, 28% of outpatient clinics, 30% of outpatient investigations and procedures, and 31% of urological surgeries had a delay of >8 wk. Urological services for benign conditions were more affected than those for malignant conditions. Finally, 47% of the respondents believed that the accumulated workload could be dealt with in a timely manner after the COVID-19 outbreak, but 50% thought the postponement of urological services would affect the treatment and survival outcomes of their patients. One of the limitations of this study is that Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were under-represented. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound global impact on urological care and urology providers. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak and was greater for benign than for malignant conditions. One-fourth of urological providers were deployed to assist with COVID-19 care. Many providers reported insufficient personal protective equipment and support from hospital administration. PATIENT SUMMARY: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has led to significant delay in outpatient care and surgery in urology, particularly in regions with the most COVID-19 cases. A considerable proportion of urology health care professionals have been deployed to assist in COVID-19 care, despite the perception of insufficient training and protective equipment.