Delayed ejaculation (DE) is a poorly defined and uncommon form of male sexual dysfunction, characterized by a marked delay in ejaculation or an inability to achieve ejaculation. It is often quite concerning to patients and their partners, and sometimes frustrates couples' attempts to conceive. This article aims to review the pathophysiology of DE and anejaculation (AE), to explore our current understanding of the diagnosis, and to present the treatment options for this condition. Electronic databases were searched from 1966 to October 2017, including PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase. We combined “delayed ejaculation,” “retarded ejaculation,” “inhibited ejaculation,” or “anejaculation” as Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms or keywords with “epidemiology,” “etiology,” “pathophysiology,” “clinical assessment,” “diagnosis,” or “treatment.” Relevant sexual medicine textbooks were searched as well. The literature suggests that the pathophysiology of DE/AE is multifactorial, including both organic and psychosocial factors. Despite the many publications on this condition, the exact pathogenesis is not yet known. There is currently no single gold standard for diagnosing DE/AE, as operationalized criteria do not exist. The history is the key to the diagnosis. Treatment should be cause-specific. There are many approaches to treatment planning, including various psychological interventions, pharmacotherapy, and specific treatments for infertile men. An approved form of drug therapy does not exist. A number of approaches can be employed for infertile men, including the collection of nocturnal emissions, prostatic massage, prostatic urethra catheterization, penile vibratory stimulation, probe electroejaculation, sperm retrieval by aspiration from either the vas deferens or the epididymis, and testicular sperm extraction.
Catheterization ; Catheters ; Diagnosis ; Drug Therapy ; Ejaculation ; Epididymis ; Humans ; Male ; Massage ; Medical Subject Headings ; Psychology ; Sperm Retrieval ; Spermatozoa ; Urethra ; Vas Deferens

Epigenetics involved in multiple normal cellular processes. Previous research have revealed the role of hepatitis C virus infection in accelerating methylation process and affecting response to treatment in chronic hepatitis patients. This work aimed to elucidate the role of promoter methylation (PM) in response to antiviral therapy, and its contribution to the development of fibrosis through hepatocarcinogenesis-related genes. A total of 159 chronic hepatitis Egyptian patients versus 100 healthy control group were included. The methylation profile of a panel 9 genes (SFRP1, p14, p73, APC, DAPK, RASSF1A, LINE1, O6MGMT, and p16) was detected in patients’ plasma using methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (MSP). Clinical and laboratory findings were gathered for patients with combined pegylated interferon and ribavirin antiviral therapy. Regarding the patients’ response to antiviral therapy, the percentage of non-responders for APC, O6MGMT, RASSF1A, SFRP1, and p16 methylated genes were significantly higher versus responders (P<0.05). Of the 159 included patients, the most frequent methylated genes were SFRP1 (102/159), followed by p16 (100/159), RASSF1A (98/159), then LINE1 (81/159), P73 (81/159), APC (78/159), DAPK (66/159), O6MGMT (66/159), and p14 (54/159). A total of 67/98 (68.4%) cases of RASSF1A methylated gene (P=0.0.024), and 62/100 (62%) cases of P16 methylated gene (P=0.03) were associated with mild-degree fibrosis. To recapitulate, the PM of SFRP1, APC, RASSF1A, O6MGMT, and p16 genes increases in chronic hepatitis C patients, and can affect patients’ response to antiviral therapy. The RASSF1A and P16 genes might have a role in the distinction between mild and marked fibrosis.