Male reproductive health and environmental xenoestrogens

EHP is a publication of the U.S. government. Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. Research articles from EHP may be used freely; however, articles from the News section of EHP may contain photographs or figures copyrighted by other commercial organizations and individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from both the EHP editors and the holder of the copyright. Use of any materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, "Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives") and a reference provided for the article from which the material was reproduced.Male reproductive health has deteriorated in many countries during the last few decades. In the 1990s, declining semen quality has been reported from Belgium, Denmark, France, and Great Britain. The incidence of testicular cancer has increased during the same time incidences of hypospadias and cryptorchidism also appear to be increasing. Similar reproductive problems occur in many wildlife species. There are marked geographic differences in the prevalence of male reproductive disorders. While the reasons for these differences are currently unknown, both clinical and laboratory research suggest that the adverse changes may be inter-related and have a common origin in fetal life or childhood. Exposure of the male fetus to supranormal levels of estrogens, such as diethlylstilbestrol, can result in the above-mentioned reproductive defects. The growing number of reports demonstrating that common environmental contaminants and natural factors possess estrogenic activity presents the working hypothesis that the adverse trends in male reproductive health may be, at least in part, associated with exposure to estrogenic or other hormonally active (e.g., antiandrogenic) environmental chemicals during fetal and childhood development. An extensive research program is needed to understand the extent of the problem, its underlying etiology, and the development of a strategy for prevention and intervention.Supported by EU Contract BMH4-CT96-0314

Long-term effectiveness and costs of a brief self-management intervention in women with pregnancy-related low back pain after delivery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pregnancy-related low back pain is considered an important health problem and potentially leads to long-lasting pain and disability. Investigators draw particular attention to biomedical factors but there is growing evidence that psychosocial and social factors might be important. It prompted us to start a large cohort study (n = 7526) during pregnancy until one year after delivery and a nested randomized controlled intervention study in the Netherlands.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A randomized controlled trial (n = 126) nested within a cohort study, of brief self-management techniques versus usual care for treatment of women with persisting non-specific pregnancy-related low back pain three weeks after delivery. Women in the intervention group were referred to a participating physiotherapist. Women in the usual care group were free to choose physiotherapy, guidance by a general practitioner or no treatment. Follow up took place at 3 months, 6 months and one year after delivery.</p> <p>Outcomes included change in limitations in activities (RDQ), pain (VAS), severity of main complaints (MC), global feeling of recovery (GPE), impact on participation and autonomy (IPA), pain-related fear (TSK), SF-36, EuroQol and a cost diary. For the outcome measures, series of mixed models were considered. For the outcome variable global perceived effect (GPE) a logistic regression analysis is performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Intention-to-treat outcomes showed a statistical significant better estimated regression coefficient RDQ -1.6 {-2.9;-0.5} associated with treatment, as well as better IPA subscale autonomy in self-care -1.0 {-1.9;-0.03} and TSK -2.4 {-3.8;-1.1} but were not clinical relevant over time. Average total costs in the intervention group were much lower than in usual care, primarily due to differences in utilization of sick leave but not statistically significant.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Brief self-management techniques applied in the first 3 months after delivery may be a more viable first-line approach but further research is needed to draw inference on costs and to determine whether no care is a better option in the long term.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>[ISRCTN08477490]</p