Prescribing semaglutide for weight loss in non-diabetic, obese patients is associated with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction: a TriNetX database study.

Semaglutide was approved in June 2021 for weight loss in non-diabetic, obese patients. While package inserts include sexual dysfunction as a side effect, no study has assessed the degree of this risk. The objective of our study is to assess the risk of developing erectile dysfunction after semaglutide is prescribed for weight loss in obese, non-diabetic men. The TriNetX Research database was used to identify men without a diagnosis of diabetes ages 18 to 50 with BMI > 30 who were prescribed semaglutide after June 1st, 2021. Men were excluded if they had a prior erectile dysfunction diagnosis, any phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors prescription, intracavernosal injections, penile prosthesis placement, history of testosterone deficiency, testosterone prescription, pelvic radiation, radical prostatectomy, pulmonary hypertension, or were deceased. We further restricted our cohort to non-diabetic, obese men by excluding men with a prior diabetes mellitus diagnosis, a hemoglobin A1c > 6.5%, or having ever received insulin or metformin. Men were then stratified into cohorts of those that did and did not receive a semaglutide prescription. The primary outcome was the risk of new ED diagnosis and/or new prescription of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors at least one month after prescription of semaglutide. The secondary outcome was risk of testosterone deficiency diagnosis. Risk was reported using risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). 3,094 non-diabetic, obese men ages 18-50 who received a prescription of semaglutide were identified and subsequently matched to an equal number cohort of non-diabetic, obese men who never received a prescription of semaglutide. After matching, average age at index prescription for non-diabetic, obese men was 37.8 ± 7.8 and average BMI at index prescription was 38.6 ± 5.6. Non-diabetic men prescribed semaglutide were significantly more likely to develop erectile dysfunction and/or were prescribed phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (1.47% vs 0.32%; RR: 4.5; 95% CI [2.3, 9.0]) and testosterone deficiency (1.53% vs 0.80%; RR: 1.9; 95% CI [1.2, 3.1]) when compared to the control cohort of non-diabetic men who never received a semaglutide prescription.

Comparing risk of post infection erectile dysfunction following SARS Coronavirus 2 stratified by acute and long COVID, hospitalization status, and vasopressor administration: a U.S. large claims database analysis.

No study has yet assessed the risk of developing erectile dysfunction (ED) after a diagnosis of long COVID, defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as the persistence or presence of new symptoms at least 4 weeks after initial SARS-CoV-2 infection, when compared to those diagnosed with acute COVID or cases in which more severe treatment is required. To assess these risks, we queried the TriNetX COVID-19 Research Network from December 1st 2020 through June 2023. Men aged ≥ 18 diagnosed with long COVID were compared to those diagnosed with acute COVID and analyses were performed to compare men who were/were not hospitalized within 1 month of acute COVID diagnosis and men who did/did not need vasopressors. Cohorts were propensity score matched and compared for differences in new ED diagnosis and/or prescription of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i). After propensity score matching, the long and acute COVID cohorts included 2839 men with an average age of 54.5±16.7 and 55.1±17.1 years respectively (p = 0.21). Men with long COVID were more likely to develop ED or be prescribed PDE5i (3.63%) when compared to men with only acute COVID infections (2.61%) [RR 1.39; 95% CI 1.04, 1.87]. There was no statistically significant risk of developing ED or being prescribed PDE5i for individuals who received vasopressors [RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.77,1.10] or were hospitalized [RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82,1.06].

Erectile dysfunction and Peyronie's disease diagnosis rates after penile fracture-a retrospective claims database cohort analysis.

Our objective was to analyze the rates of erectile dysfunction and Peyronie's disease following a penile fracture using a large, multi-institutional claims database. Inclusion criteria included men ages 15 or older with a diagnosis of penile fracture and any office visit within 5 years of the penile fracture. Exclusion criteria included prior erectile dysfunction, prescription of erectile aids, or penile prosthesis placement. Our primary outcome was the diagnosis of erectile dysfunction or prescription of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors within 5 years. A secondary analysis assessed rates of Peyronie's disease following penile fracture. 1242 men were identified with penile fracture and subsequently matched to men without penile fracture, resulting in equal cohorts of 1227 men. Men with a history of penile fracture were more likely to receive a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction or require phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (RR 3.18, 95% CI: 2.30-4.40). Men who did not undergo immediate repair had higher rates of erectile dysfunction or treatment (RR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.22-2.78). Men over the age of 45 years who had a penile fracture were more likely to develop erectile dysfunction or treatment compared to men under 45 years (RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.14-2.39). Rates of Peyronie's disease were higher in men with a history of penile fracture (5.8% vs 0%, p < 0.0001). Rates of Peyronie's disease were lower if immediate repair of the fracture was performed (RR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.10-0.41). Men over the age of 45 years with penile fracture were more likely to develop Peyronie's Disease within 5 years compared to men under the age of 45 years penile fracture (RR: 3.72, 95% CI: 1.94-7.16). Penile fracture increases the risk of both erectile dysfunction and Peyronie's disease, especially those treated with conservative measures or over the age of 45 years compared to patients under 45 years with a penile fracture.

Post-infection erectile dysfunction risk - comparing COVID-19 with other common acute viral infections: a large national claims database analysis.

It is unknown if the risk of erectile dysfunction (ED) following Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) infection is virus-specific. Our study assessed the risk of ED in COVID-19 patients as compared to patients with other common viral infections. The TriNetX COVID-19 Research Network was queried. We examined cohorts of men aged ≥18 years infected with: COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, enterovirus, acute viral hepatitis, mononucleosis, and herpes zoster. Men were included if they had at least one outpatient follow-up visit within 18 months and excluded if they had one of the other viruses of interest or a prior ED diagnosis or treatment, prostatectomy, pelvis radiation, or chronic hepatitis infection. Cohorts were propensity score matched and compared for differences in new ED diagnosis and/or prescription of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i). COVID-19 positive men were less likely to develop ED or have a PDE5i prescription than men with infected with herpes zoster [Relative Risk (RR): 0.37, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.27-0.49] and more likely to develop ED or have a PDE5i prescription than men with no acute viral illness (RR: 1.33, 95% CI 1.25-1.42). In this national propensity-matched cohort study comparing post-infection ED risk and PDE5i prescriptions, we found that COVID-19 was no more likely to result in a diagnosis of ED or prescription of PDE5i when compared to all acute viral illnesses except herpes zoster, which was more likely to result in a diagnosis of ED or prescription of PDE5i when compared to COVID-19. These findings suggest an inflammatory etiology (perhaps due to cytokine release, endothelial dysfunction, or blunted hormone signaling) behind any acute infection can result in a heightened ED risk; however, further studies are required to investigate the connection between other viral infections and ED.

Antibody Kinetics after Three Doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Background: The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants calls for more data on SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine response. Aims: We aimed to assess the response to a third mRNA vaccine dose against SARS-CoV-2 in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Methods: This was a single-center, observational prospective study of IBD patients who received a third mRNA vaccine dose against SARS-CoV-2. Antibody titers were taken post-third-dose at one and three months using the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2-S enzyme immunoassay. Titers less than 0.8 units/mL were considered negative according to the manufactures. Titers between 0.8 units/mL and 250 units/mL were considered non-neutralizing. Titers greater than 250 units/mL were considered neutralizing. Results: Eighty-three patients were included, all of whom had detectable antibodies at 3 months post-third dose. A total of 89% showed neutralizing and 11% non-neutralizing titers. Participants with non-neutralizing titers were more likely to be on systemic corticosteroids (p = 0.04). Two participants seroconverted from negative to positive, whereas 86% with non-neutralizing titers boosted to neutralizing levels. Only one participant with neutralizing titers after a third dose had a decrease to a non-neutralizing level within 3 months. Conclusions: Our findings support the ongoing recommendations for additional doses in immunocompromised individuals. However, longitudinal studies with a greater-sized patient population are needed.