Objectives: Osteoporotic fracture is a significant public health burden associated with increased mortality risk and substantial healthcare costs. Accurate and early identification of high-risk individuals and mitigation of their risks is a core part of the treatment and prevention of fractures. Here we introduce a digital tool called 'BONEcheck' for personalized assessment of bone health. Methods: The development of BONEcheck primarily utilized data from the prospective population-based Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study and the Danish Nationwide Registry. BONEcheck has 3 modules: input data, risk estimates, and risk context. Input variables include age, gender, prior fracture, fall incidence, bone mineral density (BMD), comorbidities, and genetic variants associated with BMD. Results: Based on the input variables, BONEcheck estimates the probability of any fragility fracture and hip fracture within 5 years, subsequent fracture risk, skeletal age, and time to reach osteoporosis. The probability of fracture is shown in both numeric and human icon array formats. The risk is also contextualized within the framework of treatment and management options on Australian guidelines, with consideration given to the potential fracture risk reduction and survival benefits. Skeletal age was estimated as the sum of chronological age and years of life lost due to a fracture or exposure to risk factors that elevate mortality risk. Conclusions BONEcheck is an innovative tool that empowers doctors and patients to engage in wellinformed discussions and make decisions based on the patient's risk profile. Public access to BONEcheck is available via https://bonecheck.org and in Apple Store (iOS) and Google Play (Android).

This article describes Viet Nam Ministry of Health’s (VMoH) activities to prepare for and respond to the threat Zika virus (ZIKV), including the adaptation of existing surveillance systems to encompass ZIKV surveillance.

Purpose: Varicoceles can be a source of elevated seminal oxidative stress (OS) and sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF). However, it remains unclear whether varicocele repair (VR) could reduce these parameters. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aims to investigate the impact of VR on SDF and seminal malondialdehyde (MDA). Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane databases. This SRMA included randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting the pre- and postoperative levels of SDF and seminal OS in infertile men with clinical varicocele that underwent VR. Subgroup analyses included techniques of VR and SDF testing. The effect size was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). Results: Out of 1,632 abstracts assessed for eligibility, 29 studies with 1,491 infertile men were included. The analysis showed a significant reduction in SDF after VR, compared to preoperative values (SMD −1.125, 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.410, −0.840; p<0.0001) with high inter-study heterogeneity (I2=90.965%). Reduction in SDF was evident with microsurgical technique and non-microsurgical inguinal approaches (SMD −1.014, 95% CI −1.263, −0.765; p<0.0001, and SMD −1.495, 95% CI −2.116, −0.873; p<0.0001), respectively. Reduction in SDF was significant irrespective of testing was done by sperm chromatin dispersion (SMD −2.197, 95% CI −3.187, −1.207; p<0.0001), sperm chromatin structure assay (SMD −0.857, 95% CI −1.156, −0.559; p<0.0001) or TUNEL (SMD −1.599, 95% CI −2.478, −0.719; p<0.0001). A significant decrease in seminal MDA levels was observed following VR (SMD −2.450, 95% CI −3.903 to −0.997, p=0.001) with high inter-study heterogeneity (I2=93.7%). Conclusions Using pre- and post-intervention data, this SRMA indicates a significant reduction in SDF and seminal MDA levels in infertile men with clinical varicocele treated with VR. These findings may have important implications for the future management of this selected group of infertile patients.

Purpose: Despite the significant role of varicocele in the pathogenesis of male infertility, the impact of varicocele repair (VR) on conventional semen parameters remains controversial. Only a few systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have evaluated the impact of VR on sperm concentration, total motility, and progressive motility, mostly using a before-after analytic approach. No SRMA to date has evaluated the change in conventional semen parameters after VR compared to untreated controls. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of VR on conventional semen parameters in infertile patients with clinical varicocele compared to untreated controls. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICOS) model (Population: infertile patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: VR [any technique]; Comparison: infertile patients with clinical varicocele that were untreated; Outcome: sperm concentration, sperm total count, progressive sperm motility, total sperm motility, sperm morphology, and semen volume; Study type: randomized controlled trials and observational studies). Results: A total of 1,632 abstracts were initially assessed for eligibility. Sixteen studies were finally included with a total of 2,420 infertile men with clinical varicocele (1,424 patients treated with VR vs. 996 untreated controls). The analysis showed significantly improved post-operative semen parameters in patients compared to controls with regards to sperm concentration (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.739; 95% CI 1.129 to 2.349; p<0.001; I2=97.6%), total sperm count (SMD 1.894; 95% CI 0.566 to 3.222; p<0.05; I2=97.8%), progressive sperm motility (SMD 3.301; 95% CI 2.164 to 4.437; p<0.01; I2=98.5%), total sperm motility (SMD 0.887; 95% CI 0.036 to 1.738; p=0.04; I2=97.3%) and normal sperm morphology (SMD 1.673; 95% CI 0.876 to 2.470; p<0.05; I2=98.5%). All the outcomes showed a high inter-study heterogeneity, but the sensitivity analysis showed that no study was sensitive enough to change these results. Publication bias was present only in the analysis of the sperm concentration and progressive motility. No significant difference was found for the semen volume (SMD 0.313; 95% CI -0.242 to 0.868; I2=89.7%). Conclusions This study provides a high level of evidence in favor of a positive effect of VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men with clinical varicocele. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SRMA to compare changes in conventional semen parameters after VR with changes in parameters of a control group over the same period. This is in contrast to other SRMAs which have compared semen parameters before and after VR, without reference to a control group. Our findings strengthen the available evidence and have a potential to upgrade professional societies’ practice recommendations favoring VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men.

Purpose: Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) has been associated with male infertility and poor outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The purpose of this study was to investigate global practices related to the management of elevated SDF in infertile men, summarize the relevant professional society recommendations, and provide expert recommendations for managing this condition. Materials and Methods: An online global survey on clinical practices related to SDF was disseminated to reproductive clinicians, according to the CHERRIES checklist criteria. Management protocols for various conditions associated with SDF were captured and compared to the relevant recommendations in professional society guidelines and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations and consensus on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF were then formulated and adapted using the Delphi method. Results: A total of 436 experts from 55 different countries submitted responses. As an initial approach, 79.1% of reproductive experts recommend lifestyle modifications for infertile men with elevated SDF, and 76.9% prescribe empiric antioxidants. Regarding antioxidant duration, 39.3% recommend 4–6 months and 38.1% recommend 3 months. For men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, and couples experiencing recurrent miscarriages associated with elevated SDF, most respondents refer to ART 6 months after failure of conservative and empiric medical management. Infertile men with clinical varicocele, normal conventional semen parameters, and elevated SDF are offered varicocele repair immediately after diagnosis by 31.4%, and after failure of antioxidants and conservative measures by 40.9%. Sperm selection techniques and testicular sperm extraction are also management options for couples undergoing ART. For most questions, heterogenous practices were demonstrated. Conclusions This paper presents the results of a large global survey on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF and reveals a lack of consensus among clinicians. Furthermore, it demonstrates the scarcity of professional society guidelines in this regard and attempts to highlight the relevant evidence. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/ uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.