Introduction
Male hypogonadism is a common condition with an increasing body of literature on diagnosis, implications, and management. Given the significant variability in T from a physiologic and assay perspective, a thorough understanding of factors impacting T values and study methodology are essential to appropriately interpret reported study outcomes. However, despite the large number of T publications, there are no reference materials, which consolidate all relevant and potentially confounding factors necessary to appropriately interpret T studies.
Aims
To create a resource document that reviews sources of T variability, free versus total T, assay techniques and questionnaires, and study methodology relevant to interpreting outcomes.
Methods
A PubMed search was performed of all T literature published on T variability, assay techniques, and T-specific questionnaires. Results were summarized in the context of their impact on interpreting T literature outcomes and methodology.
Main Outcome Measures
The effect of various factors on T variability and their relevance to study methodology and outcomes.
Results
Several factors impact measured T levels including aging, circadian rhythms, geography, genetics, lifestyle choices, comorbid conditions, and intra-individual daily variability. The utility of free T (fT) over total T is debatable and must be compared using appropriate threshold levels. Among various assay techniques, mass spectrometry and equilibrium dialysis are gold standards. Calculated empirical estimates of fT are also commonly utilized and accepted. Hypogonadism-specific questionnaires have limited utility in screening for hypogonadism, and their role as objective end-points for quantifying symptoms remains unclear. Numerous aspects of study methodology may directly or indirectly impact reported outcomes including design (randomized, prospective, retrospective), duration, populations studied (age, comorbid conditions), low T threshold, therapeutic agent utilized, objective measures/end-points selected, and statistical interpretation.
Conclusions
Critical appraisal of T literature requires an understanding of numerous factors resulting in T variability, study design and methodology, and limitations of assay techniques and objective measurement scales.