RESUMO
PURPOSE: Clomiphene citrate (CC) is prescribed off-label in men to improve testosterone and sperm parameters, but the duration of treatment needed to reach maximal benefit remains unclear. Our objective was to examine temporal effects of CC on total testosterone (TT) and semen analysis (SA) using longitudinal follow-up data in treated men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed an IRB-approved database of men treated with CC (25 mg q.d. or 50 mg q.o.d.) from January 2016 through May 2021. We identified patients with 3, 6, 9, and 12 month follow-up data for TT and 3, 6, and 9 month follow-up SA. Mean absolute changes in TT and sperm concentration compared to baseline were calculated, along with 95% confidence intervals. Men with prior genitourinary procedures or hormone therapy were excluded. Paired t-tests were used to compare TT and sperm concentration at each time point to baseline (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: One hundered thirty-four men received CC, mean age 37.7 years (SD 6.7, range 24-52). TT at all follow-ups (3, 6, 9, and 12 months) were available for 25 men, and SA at 3, 6, and 9 months for 26 men. Baseline TT was 358±145 ng/dL and sperm concentration was 13±17.2 M/mL. Significant improvement in TT was identified at 3 months (62.7 ng/dL, 95% CI: 0.49-125.0, p=0.048), additional benefit at 6 months (181.8 ng/dL, 95% CI: 114.1-249.5, p<0.01), and plateau at 9 and 12 months. Improvement in sperm concentration was first observed at 9 months (20.7 M/mL, 95% CI: 10.2-31.2, p<0.01). Semen volume and sperm motility did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Duration of treatment with clomiphene may impact testosterone and sperm concentration, and the historical 3 month milestone may be insufficient for clinical and research evaluation. Men taking CC may experience plateau in TT at 6 months and first benefit in sperm concentration at 9 months.
RESUMO
Background: Efficacy of clomiphene citrate (CC) in the treatment of male subfertility remains unclear, with inconsistent results in the literature and limited guidance from professional organizations. We sought to stratify the response to clomiphene in men based on their initial gonadotropins and semen parameters. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 234 patients from an academic center who took CC for subfertility. Patients with pre-treatment and 3 months follow-up total testosterone (TT) and semen analyses were included. Patients with previous hormone therapy, genitourinary surgery, prior success in conceiving pregnancy, or only one semen analysis were excluded. Primary outcomes were magnitudes of improvement in TT and semen parameters at 3 months. Student's t-test (alpha =0.05) was used for univariate analyses; multivariable linear regression was used for multivariate analysis. Results: One hundred and thirty-seven patients met inclusion criteria. Thirty-four percent of patients experienced improvement in sperm concentration after 3 months of CC treatment, 13% decreased, and 53% showed no change. Using a pre-treatment TT cutoff of 300 ng/dL and gonadotropin thresholds of 7 miU/mL, initial TT did not affect magnitude of improvement in semen parameters, while lower initial gonadotropins showed statistical improvement across all outcomes. Multivariate analysis showed pre-treatment follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) was inversely correlated with improvement in TT [odds ratio (OR): 2.64e-05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32e-09 to 5.28e-01, P=0.04] and sperm concentration (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 5.70e-02 to 8.48e-01, P=0.03). We also provide initial gonadotropin cutoffs that suggest statistical benefit from CC use. Conclusions: Men with lower gonadotropin levels may expect greater degree of improvement in both hormone and semen parameters with use of CC. Men with azoospermia do not benefit based on semen analyses alone. Degree of non-azoospermia does not affect magnitude of improvement. CC had decreasing efficacy at higher initial gonadotropin levels. These data may provide guidance in stratifying and counseling men for CC treatment.
RESUMO
Background: Pandemic restrictions have changed how patients approach symptomatic kidney stones. We used a mixed-methods digital ethnographic approach to evaluate social media discussions about patient concerns and preferences for urolithiasis care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed kidney stone-related discussions on a large social media platform using qualitative analysis and natural language processing-based sentiment analysis. Posts were mined for demographic details, treatments pursued, and health care encounters. Pre-COVID-19 (January 1, 2020-February 29, 2020) and COVID-19 (March 1, 2020-June 1, 2020) posts were extracted from the popular online Reddit discussion board, "r/KidneyStones," which is dedicated to discussions related to urolithiasis. Results: We extracted n = 649 posts (250 pre-COVID-19, 399 COVID-19); 150 from each cohort underwent thematic analysis and data extraction. Quantitative sentiment analysis was performed on 418 posts (179 pre-COVID-19, 239 COVID-19) that described stone-related decision making before intervention. Notable discussion themes during COVID-19 focused on barriers to care and concerns about stone management. Discussants exhibited more negative and anxious tones during COVID-19, based on sentiment analysis (p < 0.01). Patient preferences shifted away from in-person visits and procedures (p < 0.001). Mean reported stone size among those visiting emergency room (ER) increased from 5.1 to 10.5 mm (p < 0.001). The proportion of discussants preferring conservative management with stones ≥10 mm increased (12.5% pre-COVID-19 vs 26% during COVID-19, p = 0.002). Opioid mentions increased from 9% to 27% of posts (p < 0.001) and were most associated with conservative management discussions. Conclusions: Online discussion forums provide contemporaneous insight into patients' experiences during a time when traditional patient-centered research methodologies are limited due to social distancing. During the pandemic, patients with symptomatic kidney stones expressed anxiety regarding outpatient encounters and reluctance toward procedural intervention. Patients opted instead for at-home conservative treatment beyond clinical guidelines and reserved ER visits for larger stones, potentially causing self-harm. Opioid discussions proliferated, an alarming consequence of the pandemic.
