| Literature DB >> 31489239 |
Rajeev Sood1, Dushiant Sharma1, Hemant Goel1, Nikhil Khattar1, Bindu Kulshreshtha2, Kunal K Singh1.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the relationship between erectile dysfunction (ED), based on the five-item International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire (IIEF-5), and presence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) or its components based on Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. We also explored the impact of increasing insulin resistance (IR), as calculated using the Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) equation, on severity of ED. Pathophysiological links between ED and testosterone were re-evaluated. Patients and methods: In all, 357 patients with ED were evaluated; 53 patients with primary, psychogenic, surgical, post-traumatic or drug-induced ED were excluded. The remaining 304 patients were evaluated after obtaining written informed consent. The Institutional Review Board approved the study. We assessed comorbidities, IIEF-5 scores, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) based on International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), blood sugars, lipid and hormonal profiles, and vitamin D3 levels. Further evaluation was done when indicated.Entities:
Keywords: Erectile dysfunction; IIEF-5; Indian population; Insulin resistance; Metabolic syndrome
Year: 2019 PMID: 31489239 PMCID: PMC6711110 DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2019.1600990
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arab J Urol ISSN: 2090-598X
General characteristic of the study population.
| Variable (normal range) | Sample size, | Mean (SD; range) | Median (interquartile range) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anthropometric data | |||
| Age, years | 304 | 44.6 (9.21; 25–60) | 45 (37.5–52) |
| IIEF-5 score | 304 | 13.81 (3.17; 5–20) | 14 (11–17) |
| IPSS (only in patients with LUTS) | 199 | 11.16 (4.54; 2–29) | 11 (8–14) |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 304 | 25.64 (2.36; 19–34) | 25.6 (24.4–27.2) |
| SBP, mmHg | 304 | 135.22 (16.82; 100–188) | 134 (120–145) |
| DBP, mmHg | 304 | 81.47 (7.8; 56–98) | 82 (76–88) |
| WC, cm | 304 | 100.11 (3.03; 86–112) | 100 (99–102) |
| Biochemical parameters | |||
| TGs (50–150 mg/dL) | 304 | 150.88 (47.09; 53–398) | 159.5 (99–187) |
| FBS (70–110 mg/dL) | 304 | 119.02 (44.66; 84–532) | 114 (100–126) |
| PPBS (90–160 mg/dL) | 304 | 164.02 (65.39; 92–623) | 154 (134–178)_ |
| HDL (40–65 mg/dL) | 304 | 38.41 (6.87; 23–55) | 37.5 (33–44) |
| LDL (50–150 mg/dL) | 304 | 100.77 (30.51; 29–189) | 91 (79–123) |
| Total cholesterol(130–230 mg/dL) | 304 | 175.41 (30.28; 94–275) | 176 (156–201) |
| Testosterone (2.49–28.2 nmol/L) | 304 | 12.86 (4.05; 3.45–26.5) | 12.3 (10.3–15.3) |
| FSH (1.55–9.74 µIU/mL) | 304 | 7.53 (2.1; 1.17–10.1) | 8.3 (6.8–9.1) |
| Prolactin (3–18.6 ng/mL) | 304 | 7.86 (2.21; 4–17.6) | 7.7 (6.7–8.6) |
| Vitamin D3 (30–56 ng/mL) | 304 | 13.35 (7.52; 5.64–54.5) | 11.4 (9.2–13.8) |
| CRP (0–1.0 mg/dL) | 304 | 0.65 (2.59; 0.01–26.1) | 0.14 (0.09–0.70) |
| Urea (15–45 mg/dL) | 304 | 22.66 (5.51; 14–38) | 21 (19–24.5) |
| Creatinine (0.6–1.2 mg/dL) | 304 | 0.8 (0.22; 0.3–1.2) | 0.75 (0.7–1.0) |
Figure 1.Age distribution of the study population.
Figure 2.Correlation between age groups and severity of ED (mild ED IIEF-5 score = 12–21, moderate/severe ED IIEF-5 score = 5–11).
Figure 3.ROC analysis of IIEF-5 score thresholds predicting MetS.
Univariate analysis.
| Variable (normal range) | β coefficient | Standard error | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BP (mmHg) | 0.653 | 0.308 | 0.034 | 1.921 (1.051–3.512) |
| WC (cm) | 1.005 | 0.321 | 0.002 | 2.731 (1.455–5.125) |
| TGs (50–150 mg/dL) | 1.146 | 0.305 | <0.001 | 3.147 (1.730–5.724) |
| FBS (70–110 mg/dL) | 1.726 | 0.332 | <0.001 | 5.620 (2.931–10.773) |
| HDL (40–65 mg/dL) | 0.478 | 0.287 | 0.096 | 1.612 (0.919–2.827) |
Multivariate analysis.
| Variable (normal range) | β coefficient | Standard error | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WC (cm) | 0.727 | 0.358 | 0.042 | 2.069 (1.026–4.172) |
| TGs (50–150 mg/dL) | 1.210 | 0.326 | <0.001 | 3.355 (1.769–6.361) |
| FBS (70–110 mg/dL) | 1.746 | 0.345 | <0.001 | 5.732 (2.918–11.261) |
Figure 4.ROC analysis for HOMA-IR value thresholds predicting MetS.
Figure 5.Scatter diagram of the correlation between ED (IIEF-5 score) and IR (HOMA-IR value) (r = correlation coefficient).
Figure 6.Scatter diagram of the correlation between IIEF-5 score and mean testosterone level (r = correlation coefficient).