The men's health center: Disparities in gender specific health services among the top 50 “best hospitals” in America

AbstractObjectiveGender-specific integrated health services have long existed in the arena of women's health care, but men's health centers (MHCs) have only recently emerged as a novel practice model. Here, we seek to evaluate the prevalence and format of MHCs found in the leading academic medical centers in the United States.MethodsThe US News & World Report's Top 50 Ranked Hospitals for Urology was used as our cohort. Data were gathered on the presence of MHCs and types of providers and conditions treated. An equivalent search was performed for women's health centers (WHCs).ResultsSixteen of 50 (32%) promoted some type of MHC, compared to 49 of 50 (98%) offering a WHC. Eight of the top 15 ranked institutions (53%) had an MHC compared to eight of 35 (23%) remaining programs. Six of 16 MHCs incorporated providers from a variety of medical disciplines, including urologists, internists, endocrinologists, cardiologists, and psychologists, while another six of 16 MHCs were staffed solely by urologists. Eight of 16 provided services for exclusively urologic issues, four of 16 offered additional services in treatment of other medical conditions, and four of 16 did not specify.ConclusionA considerable disparity exists between the prevalence of gender-specific health services, with WHCs being much more numerous than MHCs. All but one leading institution had WHCs compared to less than one-third having MHCs. Our findings also highlight the heterogeneous nature of men's health programs, as they exhibit great variability in program type and focus, yet are all being marketed under the “Men's Health” banner

Inconsistent Adoption of World Health Organization V (2010) Semen Analysis Reference Ranges in the United States Six Years After Publication

Objective To determine the percentage of laboratories in the United States that have adopted the World Health Organization 2010 (WHO 5) semen analysis (SA) reference values six years after their publication. Methods Laboratories were identified via three approaches: using the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) website, the CDC's 2015 Assisted Reproductive Technology Fertility Clinical Success Rate Report, and automated web searches. Laboratories were contacted by phone or email to obtain de-identified SA reports and reference ranges. Results We contacted 617 laboratories in 46 states, of which 208 (26.7%) laboratories in 45 states were included in our analysis. 132 (63.5%) laboratories used WHO 5 criteria, 57 (27.4%) used WHO 4 criteria, and 19 (9.1%) used other criteria. WHO 5 criteria adoption rates varied by geographic region, ranging from 87.5% (35/40) in the Midwest to 50.0% (33/66) in the West. There was a greater adoption rate of WHO 5 reference values in academic affiliated (23/26, 88.5%) compared to non-academic affiliated laboratories (110/182, 60.4%) (P=0.028). Conclusion While the majority of laboratories have adopted WHO 5 criteria following its release six years ago, a large percentage (36.5%) use what is now considered outdated criteria. This variability could result in the characterization of a male's semen values as being “within reference range” at one center and “outside of reference range” at another. This inconsistency in classification may result in confusion for the both patient and physician and potentially shift the burden of infertility evaluation and treatment to the female partner

The Clostridium difficile Cell Wall Protein CwpV is Antigenically Variable between Strains, but Exhibits Conserved Aggregation-Promoting Function

Clostridium difficile is the main cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, leading to significant morbidity and mortality and putting considerable economic pressure on healthcare systems. Current knowledge of the molecular basis of pathogenesis is limited primarily to the activities and regulation of two major toxins. In contrast, little is known of mechanisms used in colonization of the enteric system. C. difficile expresses a proteinaceous array on its cell surface known as the S-layer, consisting primarily of the major S-layer protein SlpA and a family of SlpA homologues, the cell wall protein (CWP) family. CwpV is the largest member of this family and is expressed in a phase variable manner. Here we show CwpV promotes C. difficile aggregation, mediated by the C-terminal repetitive domain. This domain varies markedly between strains; five distinct repeat types were identified and were shown to be antigenically distinct. Other aspects of CwpV are, however, conserved. All CwpV types are expressed in a phase variable manner. Using targeted gene knock-out, we show that a single site-specific recombinase RecV is required for CwpV phase variation. CwpV is post-translationally cleaved at a conserved site leading to formation of a complex of cleavage products. The highly conserved N-terminus anchors the CwpV complex to the cell surface. Therefore CwpV function, regulation and processing are highly conserved across C. difficile strains, whilst the functional domain exists in at least five antigenically distinct forms. This hints at a complex evolutionary history for CwpV

Installing oncofertility programs for common cancers in optimum resource settings (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part II): a committee opinion

The main objective of Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part 2 is to learn more about oncofertility practices in optimum resource settings to provide a roadmap to establish oncofertility best practice models. As an extrapolation for oncofertility best practice models in optimum resource settings, we surveyed 25 leading and well-resourced oncofertility centers and institutions from the USA, Europe, Australia, and Japan. The survey included questions on the availability and degree of utilization of fertility preservation options in case of childhood cancer, breast cancer, and blood cancer. All surveyed centers responded to all questions. Responses and their calculated oncofertility scores showed three major characteristics of oncofertility practice in optimum resource settings: (1) strong utilization of sperm freezing, egg freezing, embryo freezing, ovarian tissue freezing, gonadal shielding, and fractionation of chemo- and radiotherapy; (2) promising utilization of GnRH analogs, oophoropexy, testicular tissue freezing, and oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM); and (3) rare utilization of neoadjuvant cytoprotective pharmacotherapy, artificial ovary, in vitro spermatogenesis, and stem cell reproductive technology as they are still in preclinical or early clinical research settings. Proper technical and ethical concerns should be considered when offering advanced and experimental oncofertility options to patients. Our Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part 2 proposed installing specific oncofertility programs for common cancers in optimum resource settings as an extrapolation for best practice models. This will provide efficient oncofertility edification and modeling to oncofertility teams and related healthcare providers around the globe and help them offer the best care possible to their patients

Protocol for developing a core outcome set for male infertility research:an international consensus development study

Abstract STUDY QUESTION We aim to develop, disseminate and implement a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future male infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Research into male infertility can be challenging to design, conduct and report. Evidence from randomized trials can be difficult to interpret and of limited ability to inform clinical practice for numerous reasons. These may include complex issues, such as variation in outcome measures and outcome reporting bias, as well as failure to consider the perspectives of men and their partners with lived experience of fertility problems. Previously, the Core Outcome Measure for Infertility Trials (COMMIT) initiative, an international consortium of researchers, healthcare professionals and people with fertility problems, has developed a core outcome set for general infertility research. Now, a bespoke core outcome set for male infertility is required to address the unique challenges pertinent to male infertility research. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, scientists, researchers and people with fertility problems, will be invited to participate. Formal consensus science methods will be used, including the modified Delphi method, modified Nominal Group Technique and the National Institutes of Health’s consensus development conference. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS An international steering group, including the relevant stakeholders outlined above, has been established to guide the development of this core outcome set. Possible core outcomes will be identified by undertaking a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male factor infertility. These outcomes will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Repeated reflection and re-scoring should promote convergence towards consensus outcomes, which will be prioritized during a consensus development meeting to identify a final core outcome set. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work has been supported by the Urology Foundation small project award, 2021. C.L.R.B. is the recipient of a BMGF grant and received consultancy fees from Exscentia and Exceed sperm testing, paid to the University of Dundee and speaking fees or honoraria paid personally by Ferring, Copper Surgical and RBMO. S.B. received royalties from Cambridge University Press, Speaker honoraria for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Singapore, Merk SMART Masterclass and Merk FERRING Forum, paid to the University of Aberdeen. Payment for leadership roles within NHS Grampian, previously paid to self, now paid to University of Aberdeen. An Honorarium is received as Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. M.L.E. is an advisor to the companies Hannah and Ro. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from the NHMRC, No: GNT1176437 is a paid consultant for ObsEva and has received research funding from Ferring and Merck. R.R.H. received royalties from Elsevier for a book, consultancy fees from Glyciome, and presentation fees from GryNumber Health and Aytu Bioscience. Aytu Bioscience also funded MiOXYS systems and sensors. Attendance at Fertility 2020 and Roadshow South Africa by Ralf Henkel was funded by LogixX Pharma Ltd. R.R.H. is also Editor in Chief of Andrologia and has been an employee of LogixX Pharma Ltd. since 2020. M.S.K. is an associate editor with Human Reproduction Open. K.Mc.E. received an honoraria for lectures from Bayer and Pharmasure in 2019 and payment for an ESHRE grant review in 2019. His attendance at ESHRE 2019 and AUA 2019 was sponsored by Pharmasure and Bayer, respectively. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative registration No: 1586. Available at www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1586. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE N/A. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT N/A

A View from the Past Into our Collective Future: The Oncofertility Consortium Vision Statement

Today, male and female adult and pediatric cancer patients, individuals transitioning between gender identities, and other individuals facing health extending but fertility limiting treatments can look forward to a fertile future. This is, in part, due to the work of members associated with the Oncofertility Consortium. The Oncofertility Consortium is an international, interdisciplinary initiative originally designed to explore the urgent unmet need associated with the reproductive future of cancer survivors. As the strategies for fertility management were invented, developed or applied, the individuals for who the program offered hope, similarly expanded. As a community of practice, Consortium participants share information in an open and rapid manner to addresses the complex health care and quality-of-life issues of cancer, transgender and other patients. To ensure that the organization remains contemporary to the needs of the community, the field designed a fully inclusive mechanism for strategic planning and here present the findings of this process. This interprofessional network of medical specialists, scientists, and scholars in the law, medical ethics, religious studies and other disciplines associated with human interventions, explore the relationships between health, disease, survivorship, treatment, gender and reproductive longevity. The goals are to continually integrate the best science in the service of the needs of patients and build a community of care that is ready for the challenges of the field in the future