Sexual dysfunctions in young women with type 1 diabetes and high glucose variability: findings from the METRO study

Semen quality and metabolic profile in people with type 1 diabetes with and without erectile dysfunction: a cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the association of metabolic and glycemic variables with semen parameters in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with and without erectile dysfunction (ED).

METHODS

The study population included 88 adults with T1D using a continuous glucose monitoring, of whom 28 with ED (ED group) and 60 without it (NO ED group). All men completed the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and underwent body composition analysis (BIA) and semen analysis.

RESULTS

ED group showed worse HbA1c levels [median (IQR), 8.4 (7.7, 9.9) vs 7.4 (7, 8.2) %, P < 0.001)], higher insulin dose [60 (51, 65) vs 45 (38, 56) UI/die, P = 0.004)] and a higher total body water and intracellular water as compared with ED group. Men in the ED group presented higher semen volume [2.8 (2.6, 4.2) vs 2.5 (2.2, 2.7) mL, P < 0.001] and sperm concentration [24 (19, 29) vs 20 (12, 23) mil/mL, P = 0.010], but reduced sperm progressive motility [28 (25, 35) vs 35 (25, 36) %, P = 0.011], higher rate of non-progressive motility [15 (10, 15) vs 10 (5, 10) %, P < 0.001] and higher rate of typical morphology [7(5, 8) vs 5 (4, 5) %, P = 0.001]. Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis performed to assess the association between clinical variables and ED, intracellular water (OR 3.829, 95% CI 1.205, 12.163, P = 0.023) resulted as the only independent predictor of ED.

CONCLUSION

Men with T1D and ED showed worse metabolic profile which is associated with poor semen quality, as compared with those without ED.

Semen quality and metabolic profile in people with type 1 diabetes with and without erectile dysfunction: a cross-sectional study

Purpose

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the association of metabolic and glycemic variables with semen parameters in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with and without erectile dysfunction (ED).

Methods

The study population included 88 adults with T1D using a continuous glucose monitoring, of whom 28 with ED (ED group) and 60 without it (NO ED group). All men completed the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and underwent body composition analysis (BIA) and semen analysis.

Results

ED group showed worse HbA1c levels [median (IQR), 8.4 (7.7, 9.9) vs 7.4 (7, 8.2) %, P < 0.001)], higher insulin dose [60 (51, 65) vs 45 (38, 56) UI/die, P = 0.004)] and a higher total body water and intracellular water as compared with ED group. Men in the ED group presented higher semen volume [2.8 (2.6, 4.2) vs 2.5 (2.2, 2.7) mL, P < 0.001] and sperm concentration [24 (19, 29) vs 20 (12, 23) mil/mL, P = 0.010], but reduced sperm progressive motility [28 (25, 35) vs 35 (25, 36) %, P = 0.011], higher rate of non-progressive motility [15 (10, 15) vs 10 (5, 10) %, P < 0.001] and higher rate of typical morphology [7(5, 8) vs 5 (4, 5) %, P = 0.001]. Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis performed to assess the association between clinical variables and ED, intracellular water (OR 3.829, 95% CI 1.205, 12.163, P = 0.023) resulted as the only independent predictor of ED.

Conclusion

Men with T1D and ED showed worse metabolic profile which is associated with poor semen quality, as compared with those without ED.

Diabetes technology and sexual health: which role?

PURPOSE

The aim of this review is to evaluate the effects of new technology used in the management of diabetes mellitus (DM), including the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and the administration of insulin through continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), on male and female sexual function.

METHODS

This narrative review was performed for all available prospective, retrospective and review articles, published up to June 2023 in PubMed. Data were extracted from the text and from the tables of the manuscript.

RESULTS

Sexual dysfunctions are an underestimated comorbidity of DM in both male and female. Although erectile dysfunction (ED) is recognized by the guidelines as a complication of DM, female sexual dysfunction (FSD) is poorly investigated in clinical setting. In addition to the complications of DM, the different types of therapies can also influence male and female sexual response. Furthermore, insulin therapy can be administered through multiple-daily injections (MDI) or a CSII. The new technologies in the field of DM allow better glycemic control which results in a reduction in the occurrence or aggravation of complications of DM. Despite this evidence, few data are available on the impact of new technologies on sexual dysfunctions.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DM technology might affect sexual function due to the risk of a worse body image, as well as discomfort related to CSII disconnection during sexual activity. However, the use is related to an improved metabolic control, which, in the long-term associates to a reduction in all diabetes complications, including sexual function.

Sexual dysfunctions and short-term glucose variability in young men with type 1 diabetes

PURPOSE

Erectile dysfunction (ED) and premature ejaculation (PE) are common sexual disorders in people with diabetes. Glucose variability (GV) has been recognized as a predictor of microvascular complications. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between glucose variability and sexual dysfunctions in young men with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

One hundred and twelve patients with type 1 diabetes, aged 18-30 years, were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups according to glucose variability [group 1 (high GV with coefficient of variation ≥ 36%)] and group 2 (low GV with coefficient of variation < 36%)). The presence of sexual dysfunctions was investigated with validated questionnaires.

RESULTS

ED and PE prevalence rates in group 1 were 26% and 13%, respectively. Similarly, in group 2, the prevalence of ED was 24%, and the prevalence of PE was 13%. In both groups, no significant associations between sexual dysfunctions and parameters of glucose variability were found. Multiple regression analysis identified age and depression as independent predictors of ED and PE.

CONCLUSION

Young male patients affected by type 1 diabetes with high or low glucose variability show a similar prevalence of sexual dysfunctions. ED is the most common sexual dysfunction in diabetic men. Age and depression were the only independent predictive factors for sexual dysfunctions in this population.