Eligibility for the medical therapy among men with non-obstructive azoospermia-Findings from a multi-centric cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Existing literature does not provide accurate epidemiological data regarding the true prevalence of men with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) who would be eligible for hormonal optimization therapy, according to specific pre-treatment criteria. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the characteristics of those men with NOA who would qualify for the medical therapy prior to any SR procedure in a large multi-centric cross-sectional study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Complete data from 1644 NOA patients seeking medical help for primary infertility at three tertiary referral centers from USA, Brazil, and Italy were analyzed. Baseline serum hormone levels were collected for all patients. NOA was confirmed after two consecutive semen analyses. Genetic tests, including karyotype analysis and Y microdeletions, were performed on all patients. Patients with secondary hypogonadism (total testosterone (T) levels less than 300 ng/dL and luteinizing hormone (LH) levels less than 8 mIU/mL) were earmarked as potential candidates for receiving clomiphene citrate (CC) and/or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). Patients with a T to 17ß-estradiol (E2) ratio < 10 were classified as eligible for aromatase inhibitors (AIs) therapy (e.g., anastrazole). A third sub-cohort was created by combining the criteria of the first two sub-cohorts. Descriptive statistics was used to detail overall characteristics and differences between the different sub-cohorts. RESULTS: Among the 1,644 men, 28% (n = 460) had T < 300 ng/dL and LH < 8 mIU/mL, thereby being potentially suitable for CC and/or hCG, while 37% (n = 607) had a T to E2 ratio < 10 thus potentially suitable for AIs. Lastly, 17.7% (n = 280) met the criteria for potential eligibility for both CC and/or hCG and AIs. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this multicentric cross-sectional study reveal that about 30% of men with NOA were eligible for hormonal treatment with CC and/or hCG while 37% were found to be potential candidates for AIs, and 17% for both therapies. Therefore, these findings show that a only a small subset of NOA patients can benefit from medical therapy prior to considering any SR procedures.

Male obesity: Associated effects on fertility and the outcomes of offspring.

Obesity rates are increasing globally, making it imperative to comprehend the effects of parental obesity on human reproduction. This review aims to highlight the impact of male obesity on reproductive and offspring outcomes. Male obesity has been shown to affect fertility through various mechanisms, including changes in semen quality, difficulty with natural conception, and worsened assisted reproductive technology outcomes. The evidence regarding the impact of male obesity on success of sperm retrieval is conflicting, but all aforementioned adverse effects may be modifiable with weight loss. Moreover, paternal obesity may influence atypical offspring outcomes, such as placental abnormalities and disruptions in fetal development, which may be moderated by epigenetic pathways. Further research is needed to fully understand the complex relationships and underlying mechanisms involved. Gaining more insight into the impact of male obesity on fertility and offspring outcomes can aid in the development of targeted interventions to improve family planning and the health of future generations.

Semen Cryopreservation in Men with Cancer: Identifying Patterns and Challenges.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of male cancer patients who undergo semen cryopreservation before chemotherapy after referral was placed, identify factors associated with completing the procedure, and explore reasons for not moving forward with it. METHODS: The electronic medical records of men with cancer who were referred to a reproductive urologist identified with an ICD-10 code for a fertility preservation procedure (Z31.62, Z31.84) between November 2021 and February 2023 were reviewed. Cancer type, semen cryopreservation rates, and reasons for opting out of the procedure were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 128 men diagnosed with cancer who were referred for cryopreservation during the study period, n:67 (52%) underwent semen cryopreservation. Those who did not undergo the procedure tended to be older, with a median age of 38 years compared to those that did it (33 years) (p: 0.10). The most common reasons for non-compliance included financial burden, and lack of interest. CONCLUSION: While it is recommended that patients consider fertility preservation prior to chemotherapy, our findings suggest that only half of male cancer patients completed the procedure despite referral. Further work is needed to determine barriers to access and increase awareness of fertility preservation prior to chemotherapy.