Reproductive urologic consultation in subfertile men: predictors of establishing care and patient perceptions after abnormal semen testing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictors of establishing care with a reproductive urologist (RU) among men with abnormal semen analyses (SAs) ordered by nonurologists and examine patient perceptions of abnormal SAs in the absence of RU consultation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Large, integrated academic healthcare system during 2002-2019. PATIENT(S): We identified adult men undergoing initial SAs with nonurologists who had abnormalities. Patients with index SAs during 2002-2018 were included for the analysis of RU consultation. Men tested in 2019 were recruited for cross-sectional survey. INTERVENTION(S): Cross-sectional survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): RU consultation and accurate perception of abnormal SAs. RESULT(S): A total of 2,283 men had abnormal SAs ordered by nonurologists, among whom 20.5% underwent RU consultation. Mixed-effect logistic regression modeling identified oligospermia as the strongest predictor of RU care (odds ratio, 3.08; 95% confidence interval, 2.43-3.90) with a significant provider-level random intercept. We observed substantial provider-level heterogeneity among nonurologists with provider-specific rates of RU evaluation ranging from 3.7% to 35.8%. We contacted 310 men who did not undergo RU consultation with a 27.2% survey response rate. Of respondents, 6.7% reported receiving an RU referral. Among men with abnormal SAs not evaluated by RU, 22.7% appropriately perceived an abnormal SA. CONCLUSION(S): In men with abnormal SAs diagnosed by nonurologists, the rate of RU consultation was low and associated with substantial provider-level variation among ordering providers. Patients without RU consultation reported inaccurate perceptions of their SA. Multidisciplinary efforts are needed to ensure that subfertile men receive appropriate RU evaluation.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) Use is Not Associated With Impaired Semen Parameters.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) use and semen quality. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all men undergoing semen analysis (SA) for fertility evaluation from 2002-2020 at a single academic medical center. Men were excluded if they had prior exposure to spermatotoxic medications, clomiphene citrate, gonadotropins, selective estrogen receptor modulators, or medical conditions known to impact male fertility. SSRI exposure was defined by an outpatient prescription within 90 days prior to any semen test. Differences between men with and without SSRI exposure were assessed with Wilcoxon rank sum for continuous variables and chi-squared testing for proportions. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were fit to evaluate the relationship between SSRI use and individual semen parameters, controlling for age at the time of the semen analysis and non-SSRI drug use. RESULTS: A total of 8861 men were identified, of whom 153 men (1.7%) were exposed to SSRIs prior to SA. Median age was 35 years (interquartile range: 32-39) and was similar between groups (P = .999). Non-SSRI medication use was significantly higher in men taking SSRIs (78.4% vs 23.3%, < .001). On univariable and multivariable analyses, SSRI exposure was not associated with differences in semen volume, sperm concentration, motility, total motile sperm count, or normal morphology. CONCLUSION: In adult men undergoing fertility evaluation, SSRI exposure was not associated with impaired semen parameters. These data may help inform reproductive counseling and medical decision-making regarding SSRI use in men seeking paternity.

The adverse association between stimulant use for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and semen parameters.

This study examined the relationship between stimulant medications used for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and semen parameters. We performed a retrospective cohort study at a large, academic institution between 2002 and 2020. We included men with a semen analysis without prior spermatotoxic medication use, empiric medical therapy exposure or confounding medical diagnoses (varicocele, Klinefelter's syndrome, cryptorchidism, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, cancer or cancer-related treatment, and azoospermia). Men were stratified by stimulant exposure (methylphenidate or amphetamines). A multivariable linear regression was fit to assess the association between individual semen parameters, age, stimulant exposure and non-stimulant medication use. Of 8,861 men identified, 106 men had active prescriptions for stimulants within 90 days prior to semen testing. After controlling for age and exposure to non-stimulant medications, stimulant use was associated with decreased total motile sperm count (ß: -18.00 mil/ejaculate and standard error: 8.44, p = 0.033) in the setting of decreased semen volume (ß: -0.35 ml, and standard error: 0.16, p = 0.035), but not sperm concentration, motility and morphology. These findings suggest a role for reproductive physicians and mental health providers to consider counselling men on the potential negative impact of stimulants prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder on semen volume during fertility planning.

Online access to male factor infertility care: the challenge of finding a specialist.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate internet search results available to couples searching for a male factor infertility specialist. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Online search engine. PATIENTS: The phrase "male infertility specialist " was searched in Google for 50 states and Washington D.C. The top 10 results (i.e., first page) of each search were evaluated for website content. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The first page of each search was evaluated for provider type (urology vs. obstetrics and gynecology), level of training (fellowship vs. none), male factor fertility information provided, and procedures offered. We compared search position rank (1-10) to determine the likelihood of finding an urologist versus a practitioner in obstetrics and gynecology. RESULTS: A total of 419 results were identified; the majority were obstetrics and gynecology-related (N = 229, 54.7%). Urology-related results appeared higher than obstetrics and gynecology-related results (median, 4 vs. 5). Andrology fellowship-trained urologists were identified in 153 (36.5%) results. Among 229 obstetrics and gynecology results, 152 unique practices were identified. A small portion (N = 38, 16.6%) of these practices had a fellowship-trained urologist identified on the website. Most obstetrics and gynecology websites did not mention vasectomy reversal (N = 116, 76.3%) or varicocele repair (N = 93, 61.2%). A minority of practices offered referral to urologists for sperm extraction (N = 23, 15.1%) or offered sperm retrieval themselves (N = 23, 15.1%). CONCLUSIONS: When searching online for a male factor infertility specialist, most results identified obstetrics and gynecology physicians. A large proportion of obstetrics and gynecology websites lacked information on male factor fertility treatments and did not offer these treatments. These data indicate the need for a more robust online presence of male reproductive urologists to optimize online access.