EFFICACY ANALYSIS OF NON-SPECIFIC OLIGOASTHENOZOOSPERMIA METABOLIC THERAPY
Relevance. Male infertility is one of the central problems of reproductive medicine, which is investigated within a wide range of medical specialties – from genetics and endocrinology to urology and andrology. The impact of this problem on the quality of human life, social functioning and existential aspects of well-being, and on a wider scale on social health, are not subject to assessment.
Aim: to analyze the effectiveness of metabolic therapy in male fertility disorders caused by nonspecific oligoasthenozoospermia.
Materials and methods. The study was carried out in a prospective design on the basis of the outpatient department of the Clinic “Men’s Health” (Kiev, Ukraine). The study contingent consisted of 28 men who had a decrease in fertility (oligoasthenozoospermia), established in two consecutive studies of ejaculate. The average age of the patients was 35.7 years. Spermatography was used as the main research method.
Study results. The study used a therapeutic model based on the prescription of a modern metabolic therapy drug. Evaluation of clinical efficacy was carried out by comparing the indices of the expanded spermogram in the week before the start of treatment and within a week after taking the last dose of the drug. Analysis of the differences in the number of cases of normal sperm counts before and after the onset of therapy indicates a reliable normalization: the number of sperm in 1 ml (p (χ2) <0.01), the total number of sperm (p (χ2) <0.01), motility (group A + B) (p (χ2) <0.01) and mobility (group C) (p (χ2) <0.01). In addition, there was a statistically insignificant increase in the number of cases of normalization of nonspecific parameters.
Conclusions. As a result of the analysis of the effectiveness of metabolic therapy in fertility disorders in men caused by nonspecific oligoasthenozoospermia,
the qualitative effectiveness of a modern drug of metabolic therapy has been established. There was a significant increase in the number of cases of normal indicators: the number of sperm in 1 ml, the total number of sperm, motility (group A + B) and motility (group C).
2. Barratt, C., Björndahl, L., De Jonge, C. J., Lamb, D. J., Osorio Martini, F., McLachlan, R., Oates, R. D., van der Poel, S., St John, B., Sigman, M., Sokol, R., & Tournaye, H. (2017). The diagnosis of male infertility: an analysis of the evidence to support the development of global WHO guidance-challenges and future research opportunities. Human reproduction update, 23(6), 660–680.
3. Anderson JE, Farr SL, Jamieson DJ, Warner L, Macaluso M. Infertility services reported by men in the United States: national survey data. Fertil Steril 2009;91:2466–2470.
4. ASRM Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile male: A committee Opinion 2015 Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril 2015. a;103:e18–e25.
5. Gurunath S, Pandian Z, Anderson RA, Bhattacharya S. Defining infertility–a systematic review of prevalence studies. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:575–588.
6. Mehta A, Nangia AK, Dupree JM, Smith JF. Limitations and barriers in access to care for male factor infertility. Fertil Steril 2016;105:1128.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.