Reproductive endocrinologists are the gatekeepers for male infertility care in North America: results of a North American survey on the referral patterns and characteristics of men presenting to male infertility specialists for infertility investigations

Circular RNAs: novel noncoding players in male infertility

Infertility is a global problem being associated with emotional and financial burden. Recent studies have shown contribution of a group of non-coding RNAs, namely circular RNAs (circRNAs) to the etiology of some infertility conditions. CircRNA are transcribed from exons and form a circular RNA molecule, being abundant in eukaryotes. Traditionally classified as non-coding RNA, these transcripts are endogenously produced through either non-canonical back-splicing or linear splicing, typically produced from precursor messenger ribonucleic acid (pre-mRNA). While during the canonical splicing process the 3' end of the exon is joined to the 5' end of the succeeding exon to form linear mRNA, during backsplicing, the 3' end to the 5' end of the same exon is joined to make a circular molecule. circRNAs are involved in the regulation of several aspects of spermatogenesis. They appear to influence how stem germ cells grow and divide during the sperm production process. Malfunctions in circRNA activity could contribute to male infertility issues stemming from abnormalities in spermatogenesis. In the current review, we highlight the exciting potential of circRNAs as key players in the male fertility.

Frequency, morbidity and equity - the case for increased research on male fertility

Currently, most men with infertility cannot be given an aetiology, which reflects a lack of knowledge around gamete production and how it is affected by genetics and the environment. A failure to recognize the burden of male infertility and its potential as a biomarker for systemic illness exists. The absence of such knowledge results in patients generally being treated as a uniform group, for whom the strategy is to bypass the causality using medically assisted reproduction (MAR) techniques. In doing so, opportunities to prevent co-morbidity are missed and the burden of MAR is shifted to the woman. To advance understanding of men's reproductive health, longitudinal and multi-national centres for data and sample collection are essential. Such programmes must enable an integrated view of the consequences of genetics, epigenetics and environmental factors on fertility and offspring health. Definition and possible amelioration of the consequences of MAR for conceived children are needed. Inherent in this statement is the necessity to promote fertility restoration and/or use the least invasive MAR strategy available. To achieve this aim, protocols must be rigorously tested and the move towards personalized medicine encouraged. Equally, education of the public, governments and clinicians on the frequency and consequences of infertility is needed. Health options, including male contraceptives, must be expanded, and the opportunities encompassed in such investment understood. The pressing questions related to male reproductive health, spanning the spectrum of andrology are identified in the Expert Recommendation.

Male Factor Infertility: What Every OB/GYN Should Know

Male factor infertility plays a role in approximately 30% of infertility cases. Various causes of male factor infertility exist including congenital, acquired, idiopathic, or environmental factors. Identifying the underlying etiology of male factor infertility is a key step toward providing appropriate counseling, effective treatment options, and improving outcomes for couples with infertility. Although the recent advances and developments in assisted reproductive technology have undoubtedly improved fertility outcomes, clinicians must understand the scope of reproductive urologists in the evaluation and treatment of male infertility to provide comprehensive counseling, appropriate referral, comprehensive evaluation, and correct surgical sperm retrieval techniques when needed.

Male infertility

Clinical infertility is the inability of a couple to conceive after 12 months of trying. Male factors are estimated to contribute to 30-50% of cases of infertility. Infertility or reduced fertility can result from testicular dysfunction, endocrinopathies, lifestyle factors (such as tobacco and obesity), congenital anatomical factors, gonadotoxic exposures and ageing, among others. The evaluation of male infertility includes detailed history taking, focused physical examination and selective laboratory testing, including semen analysis. Treatments include lifestyle optimization, empirical or targeted medical therapy as well as surgical therapies that lead to measurable improvement in fertility. Although male infertility is recognized as a disease with effects on quality of life for both members of the infertile couple, fewer data exist on specific quantification and impact compared with other health-related conditions.

The contemporary role of varicocele repair: why operate when in-vitro fertilization results are so good?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A male factor is either the primary cause or is contributory in at least half of all couples with infertility. Currently, many male factor problems may be disregarded, as reproductive technology has advanced so much that in-vitro fertilization (IVF)/Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) allows the use of even a single sperm to achieve pregnancy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Varicocele is the most commonly diagnosed correctable cause. Microsurgical repair is considered the gold standard for repair. Research has shown that varicocele repair can impact the outcome of reproductive management and upgrade male infertility from adoption or donor sperm only to IVF/ICSI and microTESE, or IVF/ICSI with ejaculated sperm, or from IVF/ICSI to intrauterine insemination (IUI) or often naturally conceived.

SUMMARY

Varicocele diagnosis and repair is an essential part of infertility evaluation. Not only does it potentially impact antiretroviral therapy choices, but it can also increase testosterone levels benefiting long-term male health.

Male Attitudes towards Infertility: Results from a Global Questionnaire

PURPOSE

In general, men are less likely to seek health care than women. Infertility is a global disease that afflicts approximately 15% of reproductive age couples and the male contributes to 40% of the diagnosable cause. Remarkably, no large or multi-national population data exist regarding men's perceptions about their infertility. The purpose of this study was to advance our knowledge about the infertile male's social experience regarding: (1) how they feel about their infertility, (2) what motivated them to seek health care, (3) how likely are they to talk with others about their infertility, (4) their awareness of male infertility support groups, and (5) what their primary source for information is regarding male infertility? Based on the results from this study, these simple questions now have clearer definition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An Institutional Review Board-approved, male-directed, anonymous questionnaire translated into 20 languages was made globally available through the Fertility Europe website (https://fertilityeurope.eu). Males (n=1,171) age 20-49 years were invited to complete the online survey after informed consent.

RESULTS

Most respondents were European (86%). Of European men, <15.8% were self-motivated to seek medical help. Further, their physician was not the primary source of information regarding their infertility. While most men (59%) viewed their infertility positively, a large majority were not very likely (73%) to talk about it. Most respondents indicated a lack of awareness or absence of male infertility support groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first multi-national population data revealing men's feelings about their infertility, what motivates them to seek help and their awareness of resources for peer support and information. These findings also serve to highlight significant gaps that exist in the provision of male reproductive health care and in supportive resources for men suffering from infertility. We offer recommendations on how to address the problem(s).

How far will they go? Distance and driving times that north American men travel to see a reproductive urologist

Male factor infertility affects about 50% of infertile couples. However, male factor infertility is largely under-evaluated due to multiple reasons. This study is to determine the time men travel for fertility evaluation, and factors associated with driving longer. Data from the Andrology Research Consortium were analysed. Driving distance and time were calculated by comparing "patient postal code" with "clinic postal code", then stratified into quartiles. Patients with the longest driving times (> 75th percentile [Q4]) were compared with those having shorter driving times. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with longer driving times. Sixteen clinics and 3029 men were included. The median driving distance was 18.1 miles, median driving time was 32 min, and Q4 driving time was 49 min. Factors correlated with having Q4 driving time were age > 30 years, native Indian and Caucasian race, body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2 , history of miscarriage, children with previous partner, self-referral, prior vasectomy, and prior marijuana use. On logistic regression, males aged < 30 years were more likely to be in Q4 for driving time versus older males. Blacks and Asians were less likely to travel further than Caucasians. Overweight/obese men, those having children with previous partner, and with prior vasectomy were more likely to be in Q4 travelling time. Factors correlated with longer driving times include younger age, native Indian and Caucasian race, higher BMI, children with prior partner, and prior vasectomy. These may reflect groups that drive long distances for reproductive care. The study provides an opportunity to better access these groups and minimise their barriers to fertility care.

Microsurgical Management of Male Infertility: Compelling Evidence That Collaboration with Qualified Male Reproductive Urologists Enhances Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Outcomes

A male factor plays a significant role in a couple's reproductive success. Today, advances in reproductive technology, such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), have allowed it to be possible for just a single sperm to fertilize an egg, thus, overcoming many of the traditional barriers to male fertility, such as a low sperm count, impaired motility, and abnormal morphology. Given these advances in reproductive technology, it has been questioned whether a reproductive urologist is needed for the evaluation and treatment of infertile and subfertile men. In this review, we aim to provide compelling evidence that collaboration between reproductive endocrinologists and reproductive urologists is essential for optimizing a couple's fertility outcomes, as well as for improving the health of infertile men and providing cost-effective care.

Varicocele is underdiagnosed in men evaluated for infertility: Examination of multi-center large-scale electronic health record data

Varicocele is the most common reversible cause of male infertility, affecting up to 20% of healthy men and 40% of men with primary infertility. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of varicocele in men evaluated for infertility, and to determine rates of subsequent varicocele repair. Since reproductive endocrinologists are the first specialists seen for male infertility care in North America, we hypothesized that varicocele would be underdiagnosed when compared to its reported prevalence among men with infertility. TriNetX, a large, multicenter electronic health record (EHR) database was queried to establish a cohort of all men (above 18 years of age) with a diagnosis of male infertility. This cohort was used to identify those with ensuing varicocele diagnosis. Men who received varicocelectomy or venous embolization after a diagnosis of varicocele were then identified. Out of 101,309 men with a diagnosis of male infertility in the network, only 9768 (9.6%) had a diagnosis of varicocele. Mean age of men with varicocele was 34. Varicocelectomy or venous embolization was performed in 1699 (20.2%) and 69 (0.76%) of men with varicocele, respectively. In this cross-sectional EHR study, varicocele was underdiagnosed in men evaluated for infertility when compared with prior epidemiological studies.

Access to Care for Infertile Men: Referral Patterns of Fertility Clinics in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate fertility clinic management of male factor infertility, including website educational content as well as factors associated with referral for urologic evaluation and care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using 2015-2018 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Fertility Clinic Success Rates Reports, 480 operative fertility clinics in the United States were identified. Clinic websites were systematically reviewed for content regarding male infertility. Structured telephone interviews of clinic representatives were performed to determine clinic-specific practices for management of male factor infertility. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to predict how clinic characteristics (geographic region, practice size, practice setting, proximity to urologist, in-state andrology fellowship, state-mandated fertility coverage, annual in vitro fertilization cycles, and percentage of in vitro fertilization cycles for male factor infertility) were associated with patient referral to a urologist for male infertility care.

RESULTS

We interviewed 477 fertility clinics and analyzed available websites (n = 474). The majority of websites (77%) discussed male infertility evaluation while 46% discussed treatment. Fifty clinics (11%) had an on-site urologist. Clinics with on-site urologists were more likely to be larger practices, academically affiliated, and discuss male infertility treatment on their website (all P ≤ .05). For clinics without an on-site urologist, practice size and presence of an in-state andrology fellowship program were the strongest predictors of urologic referral (P <.02).

CONCLUSION

Variability in patient-facing education and infertility practice setting and size influence access to urologic care for couples with male factor infertility.

Does male fertility-related quality of life differ when undergoing evaluation by reproductive urologist versus reproductive endocrinologist?

The female infertility experience is well-described, but the male experience is less explored. We sought to understand if fertility motivations and quality of life differ for males undergoing fertility evaluation by a reproductive urologist (RU) versus a reproductive endocrinologist (RE). A cross-sectional study of 201 males undergoing fertility evaluation at an academic centre, by either a RU or RE, over a 2-year period, was performed. A survey was administered, with demographic, medical, and fertility motivations questions, and the validated Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) questionnaire. Responses were compared by provider type using descriptive statistics, chi-square, and t-test. Most men (91.1%) pursued evaluation because of a mutual desire for children. RE evaluated males were older, earned higher incomes, and were more likely to pursue IVF versus those RU evaluated (p < 0.05). Men evaluated by RUs had lower FertiQoL scores, (p < 0.05), which correlated with having known male factor infertility (p < 0.05). Nearly all (96.2%) men evaluated by RUs indicated this was helpful for understanding their infertility. Our findings provide new insight into the male fertility evaluation experience. Despite the lower QoL seen by men seeing a RU, nearly all men reported that a RU evaluation was helpful for understanding their infertility experience.

Assisted reproductive technology cycles involving male factor infertility in the United States, 2017–2018: data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System

Objective

To describe the prevalence and treatment characteristics of assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles involving specific male factor infertility diagnoses in the United States.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis of ART cycles in the National ART Surveillance System (NASS).

Setting

Clinics that reported patient ART cycles performed in 2017 and 2018.

Patient(s)

Patients who visited an ART clinic and the cycles were reported in the NASS. The ART cycles included all autologous and donor cycles that used fresh or frozen embryos.

Intervention(s)

Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures

Analyses used new, detailed reporting of male factor infertility subcategories, treatment characteristics, and male partner demographics available in the NASS.

Result(s)

Among 399,573 cycles started with intent to transfer an embryo, 30.4% (n = 121,287) included a male factor infertility diagnosis as a reason for using ART. Of these, male factor only was reported in 16.5% of cycles, and both male and female factors were reported in 13.9% of cycles; 21.8% of male factor cycles had >1 male factor. Abnormal sperm parameters were the most commonly reported diagnoses (79.7%), followed by medical condition (5.3%) and genetic or chromosomal abnormalities (1.0%).

Males aged ≤40 years comprised 59.6% of cycles with male factor infertility. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection was the primary method of fertilization (81.7%). Preimplantation genetic testing was used in 26.8%, and single embryo transfer was used in 66.8% of cycles with male factor infertility diagnosis.

Conclusion(s)

Male factor infertility is a substantial contributor to infertility treatments in the United States. Continued assessment of the prevalence and characteristics of ART cycles with male factor infertility may inform treatment options and improve ART outcomes. Future studies are necessary to further evaluate male factor infertility.

Perceptions of Infertility and Semen Analysis Testing Among American Men Without Children

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether health-conscious men are more likely to be concerned about infertility and self-initiate semen analysis at a laboratory/clinic or through a direct-to-consumer at-home product without a health care provider recommendation.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey conducted online via ResearchMatch.org between November 2019 and January 2020. Men age 18 and older without children (n = 634) were included for analysis. Outcomes were likelihood of self-initiating a semen analysis, prevalence of infertility concern.

RESULTS

Of the 634 participants, 186 expressed concern about infertility but only 29% were likely to discuss these concerns with a health care provider. More men would self-initiate a semen analysis using an at-home product than through a traditional laboratory/clinic (14.2% vs 10.4%, P = .04). Odds of self-initiating a traditional semen analysis were higher for men concerned about low testosterone (odds ratio [OR] 2.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-4.74, P = .023) and infertility (OR 3.91, 95% CI 2.14-7.15, P <.001). Self-initiating an at-home semen analysis was associated with concern for low testosterone and infertility as well as middle age (age 40-59: OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.16-7.88, P = .024) and fitness tracker use (OR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.12-3.39, P = .018).

CONCLUSION

Many men were unlikely to discuss infertility concerns with a health care provider. Middle aged men and those who used fitness trackers were more likely to self-initiate fertility evaluation through at-home semen analysis. Concern about low serum testosterone was pervasive and strongly associated with concern for being infertile and self-initiating a semen analysis of any kind.

Vasectomy reversal vs. sperm retrieval with in vitro fertilization: a contemporary, comparative analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the primary options available to men who desire fertility after a vasectomy.

DESIGN

Literature review.

SETTING

University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

PATIENT(S)

Men with a previous vasectomy now seeking fertility.

INTERVENTION(S)

The two main options to achieve paternity for men following vasectomy include vasectomy reversal (VR) and surgical sperm retrieval with subsequent in vitro fertilization (IVF).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

We reviewed and compared the important considerations for men deciding between these 2 options, including: obstructive interval, female partner age, antisperm antibodies, male partner age, female infertility factors, and cost.

RESULT(S)

Both VR and IVF represent reasonable options for the couple seeking fertility after vasectomy. Specific circumstances may favor one modality over another, depending on obstructive interval, possible female fertility factors, female partner age, male partner age, and cost. In the absence of insurance coverage, VR is often more cost-effective than IVF. Alternatively, when a female factor may contribute to infertility in addition to vasectomy, IVF is often the better choice. Antisperm antibodies are unlikely to contribute to infertility following a successful VR.

CONCLUSION(S)

VR or surgical sperm retrieval with IVF are reasonable options for couples seeking children after vasectomy. Pregnancy rates for both options are overall similar, so prior to pursuing either option, a thorough discussion with a reproductive urologist who possesses microsurgical skills in VR and a reproductive endocrinologist with expertise in IVF is imperative. Making a final choice through shared decision-making while considering these points is ideal.

One size does not fit all: variations by ethnicity in demographic characteristics of men seeking fertility treatment across North America

OBJECTIVE

To compare racial differences in male fertility history and treatment.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

SETTING

North American reproductive urology centers.

PATIENT(S)

Males undergoing urologist fertility evaluation.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Demographic and reproductive Andrology Research Consortium data.

RESULT(S)

The racial breakdown of 6,462 men was: 51% White, 20% Asian/Indo-Canadian/Indo-American, 6% Black, 1% Indian/Native, <1% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 21% "Other". White males sought evaluation sooner (3.5 ± 4.7 vs. 3.8 ± 4.2 years), had older partners (33.3 ± 4.9 vs. 32.9 ± 5.2 years), and more had undergone vasectomy (8.4% vs. 2.9%) vs. all other races. Black males were older (38.0 ± 8.1 vs. 36.5 ± 7.4 years), sought fertility evaluation later (4.8 ± 5.1 vs. 3.6 ± 4.4 years), fewer had undergone vasectomy (3.3% vs. 5.9%), and fewer had partners who underwent intrauterine insemination (8.2% vs. 12.6%) compared with all other races. Asian/Indo-Canadian/Indo-American patients were younger (36.1 ± 7.2 vs. 36.7 ± 7.6 years), fewer had undergone vasectomy (1.2% vs. 6.9%), and more had partners who underwent intrauterine insemination (14.2% vs. 11.9%). Indian/Native males sought evaluation later (5.1 ± 6.8 vs. 3.6 ± 4.4 years) and more had undergone vasectomy (13.4% vs. 5.7%).

CONCLUSION(S)

Racial differences exist for males undergoing fertility evaluation by a reproductive urologist. Better understanding of these differences in history in conjunction with societal and biologic factors can guide personalized care, as well as help to better understand and address disparities in access to fertility evaluation and treatment.

Characterizing the Epidemiology and Provider Landscape of Male Infertility Care in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the epidemiology of male factor infertility and identify which types of providers are treating infertile men in the United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey was queried between 2006 and 2016 for all ambulatory care visits. Men with a diagnosis of infertility were identified by international classification of disease coding. Comorbidities, demographic and visit information were abstracted from the patients' medical record by a combination of trained surveyors and physicians. The survey data was weighted to create nationally representative estimates, and a combination of Chi-squared and Student's t-tests were utilized to determine significance.

RESULT(S)

Among the 8.7 billion patient visits between 2006 and 2016, there were 3,422,000 male encounters with a diagnosis of male factor infertility. The most common provider type for male factor infertility encounters was urology (42.12%) followed by primary care (39.79%), gynecology (7.05%) and all other provider types (11.01%). A significant number of men seen for infertility had comorbidities such as cancer (115,000 men, 3.36%) diabetes (267,000 men, 7.81%), depression (301,000 men, 8.8%), and active tobacco use (857,000 men, 30.3%).

CONCLUSION

In a nationally representative sample, more than 50% of ambulatory care visits for male factor infertility were not seen by urologists. These men also had a significant number of comorbidities for a relatively young cohort, emphasizing the importance of multidisciplinary care for men with a diagnosis of infertility.

Defining new genetic etiologies of male infertility: progress and future prospects

Male infertility is a common and complex disease, manifesting as a wide range of phenotypes, ranging from apparently normal semen parameters with an inexplicable inability to conceive, to the complete absence of sperm production. The diversity of male infertility phenotypes, coupled with the extreme complexity of spermatogenesis has significantly confounded the identification of the underlying genetic causes for these conditions, though incremental progress has been made, particularly in the past decade. In this review, we discuss the progress that has been made to date, tools and resources that have proven effective in accelerating discovery of novel genetic markers for male infertility, and areas in which we see the greatest potential for advancing the field in the coming years. These include the development and use of robust phenotyping tools, the continued development of in vitro and animal models for variant validation, increased utilization and refinement of whole genome approaches for discovery, and further expansion of consortia that assemble groups of clinicians and basic researchers with the unified goal of disentangling the complex genetic architecture of male infertility. As these resources mature, and funding agencies increasingly recognize the importance of these efforts for improving human health, the discovery of novel genetic markers for male infertility will certainly continue to accelerate.

Development and validation of a novel mail-in semen analysis system and the correlation between one hour and delayed semen analysis testing

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a novel, mail-in semen analysis (SA) system.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Ejaculates from normospermic men.

INTERVENTION(S)

One-hour SA, then repeat SAs (on same ejaculate) over 52 hours using a novel technique for maintaining sperm viability.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

World Health Organization SA parameters.

RESULT(S)

One-hour SA on 104 ejaculates in the validation phase of the study demonstrated normal semen parameters. With up to 52 hours of observation and four subsequent SA measurements/ejaculate, concentration remained stable, motility decreased by 0.39%/h, and normal morphology decreased by 0.1%/h. Measured 1-hour and calculated motility (correlation coefficients 0.87) and morphology (correlation coefficients 0.82) strongly were correlated.

CONCLUSION

This novel, mail-in, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved SA testing system demonstrates a strong degree of correlation between 1-hour and delayed SA testing. Given the linear motility and morphology decrease and stability of sperm concentration, this test may be used in clinical practice to evaluate semen quality for fertility evaluations. Furthermore, this approach significantly improves the ease, comfort, and efficiency of obtaining a SA, likely breaking down early barriers to accessing successfully a male fertility evaluation.

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.

Post-finasteride syndrome

Finasteride is a 5α-reductase enzyme inhibitor that has been approved for the treatment of male androgenic alopecia since 1997. Over time, it has been considered a safe and well-tolerated drug with rare and reversible side effects. Recently there have been reports of adverse drug-related reactions that persisted for at least three months after discontinuation of this drug, and the term post-finasteride syndrome arose. It includes persistent sexual, neuropsychiatric, and physical symptoms. Studies to date cannot refute or confirm this syndrome as a nosological entity. If it actually exists, it seems to occur in susceptible people, even if exposed to small doses and for short periods, and symptoms may persist for long periods. Based on currently available data, the use of 5α-reductase inhibitors in patients with a history of depression, sexual dysfunction, or infertility should be carefully and individually assessed.

A phenotypic screening platform utilising human spermatozoa identifies compounds with contraceptive activity

There is an urgent need to develop new methods for male contraception, however a major barrier to drug discovery has been the lack of validated targets and the absence of an effective high-throughput phenotypic screening system. To address this deficit, we developed a fully-automated robotic screening platform that provided quantitative evaluation of compound activity against two key attributes of human sperm function: motility and acrosome reaction. In order to accelerate contraceptive development, we screened the comprehensive collection of 12,000 molecules that make up the ReFRAME repurposing library, comprising nearly all the small molecules that have been approved or have undergone clinical development, or have significant preclinical profiling. We identified several compounds that potently inhibit motility representing either novel drug candidates or routes to target identification. This platform will now allow for major drug discovery programmes that address the critical gap in the contraceptive portfolio as well as uncover novel human sperm biology.