Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  1005 1030 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 1005 1030 Next Page
Page Background

IIEF-subdomain scores either when fixed or randommodels

were applied (Supplementary Fig. 2, panels A and B).

4.

Discussion

The results of this study confirm that TTh improves multiple

aspects of sexual function in hypogonadal patients

[8]

, as

measured by the frequently used, validated instrument, the

IIEF. The effect of TTh on ED is independent of age and

baseline IIEF score; however, the effect of TTh on ED is

greater in patients with low T levels at baseline and lower in

the presence of metabolic derangements, such as diabetes

and obesity. Since metabolic conditions are often associated

with relatively milder degrees of T deficiency, we cannot

rule out the possibility that the lower apparent efficacy of

TTh in these conditions is due to higher T baseline levels.

According to Rosen et al

[21]

, the observed mean 2.3-point

(when random model was considered) increase in IIEF-EFD

score should be considered clinically meaningful only in

patients with mild ED and not in those with more severe

forms. Hence, the present data suggests that TTh alone may

be a reasonable treatment option in men with milder ED

[21]

.

In sexual medicine, it is common to use self-reported

measures to evaluate the subjective perception of a specific

treatment

[21]

. Considering that several patient-reported

outcomes (PROs) have been validated and employed in

different studies, the comparison of outcomes is not always

an easy task

[21]

. To address questions for which multiple

data sources are in conflict, or fail to reach a consensus, a

meta-analysis is often used. In addition, a meta-analysis is

particularly useful when there are a variety of reports with

low statistical power; pooling data from multiple studies

can improve power and provide a convincing result.

However, results from previous meta-analyses on this

topic have been conflicting

[8,11–13,38] .

The different

methods used to compare PROs can explain, at least

partially, the conflicting results.

The most common method to compare results from

different tools on the same outcome is based on treatment-

effect size, calculated according to the method of Hedges

and Olkin

[9]

. Interestingly, by applying this method we

recently documented a positive effect of TTh on sexual

function in hypogonadal patients (total T

<

12 nmol/l), in

line with some previous meta-analyses

[11,13]

. The present

and previous

[11,13]

positive results are in apparent

contrast to those reported by Tserstvadze et al

[38] ,

who

did not document any significant effect of TTh on erection,

either alone or when added to PDE5i. It should be

recognized that Tserstvadze et al

[38]

used the DerSimonian

and Laird

[39]

method for the calculation of the effect size,

whichmay underestimate the true between-study variance,

potentially producing overly narrow confidence intervals

for the mean effect

[40]

, especially when the between-study

variance is large

[41]

. In addition, Tserstvadze et al

[38]

analyzed only nine RCTs enrolling mixed eugonadal/

hypogonadal patients, which may have resulted in a

possible inclusion bias. In fact, the present meta-regression

analysis of RCTs grouped on the basis of total T levels as

inclusion criterion indicates that the effect of TTh on IIEF-

EFD score is greater in severe TD, as previously reported

[8] .

Qualitative reviews represent an alternative to summa-

rize and discuss available evidence on a specific treatment

endpoint. A recent review considered 48 studies assessing

sexual function or libido as a primary or secondary endpoint

of TTh

[16]

. The authors concluded that TTh did not show

consistent benefit for sexual function. However, that review

failed to distinguish between results in eugonadal and

[(Fig._3)TD$FIG]

Fig. 3 – Methodological quality summary: review authors’ judgements

about each methodology quality item for each included study.

E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 0 0 – 1 0 1 1

1005