Male Infertility and Risk of Nonmalignant Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review of the Epidemiological Evidence

Clara Helene Glazer, Jens Peter Bonde, Michael L. Eisenberg, Aleksander Giwercman, Katia Keglberg Hærvig, Susie Rimborg, Ditte Vassard, Anja Pinborg, Lone Schmidt, Elvira Vaclavik Bräuner

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The association between male infertility and increased risk of certain cancers is well studied. Less is known about the long-term risk of nonmalignant diseases in men with decreased fertility. A systemic literature review was performed on the epidemiologic evidence of male infertility as a precursor for increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality. PubMed and Embase were searched from January 1, 1980, to September 1, 2016, to identify epidemiological studies reporting associations between male infertility and the outcomes of interest. Animal studies, case reports, reviews, studies not providing an accurate reference group, and studies including infertility due to vasectomy or malignancy were excluded. The literature search resulted in 2,485 references among which we identified seven articles fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Of these, four articles were prospective (three on risk of mortality, one on risk of chronic diseases) and three were cross-sectional relating male infertility to the Charlson Comorbidity Index. The current epidemiological evidence is compatible with an association between male infertility and risk of chronic disease and mortality, but the small number of prospective studies and insufficient adjustment of confounders preclude strong statements about male infertility as precursor of these outcomes.
Original languageEnglish
JournalSeminars in Reproductive Medicine
Volume35
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)282-290
Number of pages9
ISSN1526-8004
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2017

Keywords

  • Journal Article

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Male Infertility and Risk of Nonmalignant Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review of the Epidemiological Evidence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this