Comparing risk of post infection erectile dysfunction following [SARS2] stratified by [LC], hospitalization status, and vasopressor, 2024, Grutman+

Comparing risk of post infection erectile dysfunction following SARS Coronavirus 2 stratified by acute and long COVID, hospitalization status, and vasopressor administration: a U.S. large claims database analysis
Grutman, Aurora J.; Gilliam, Kelli; Maremanda, Ankith P.; Able, Corey; Choi, Una; Alshak, Mark N.; Kohn, Taylor P.

No study has yet assessed the risk of developing erectile dysfunction (ED) after a diagnosis of long COVID, defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as the persistence or presence of new symptoms at least 4 weeks after initial SARS-CoV-2 infection, when compared to those diagnosed with acute COVID or cases in which more severe treatment is required.

To assess these risks, we queried the TriNetX COVID-19 Research Network from December 1st 2020 through June 2023. Men aged ≥ 18 diagnosed with long COVID were compared to those diagnosed with acute COVID and analyses were performed to compare men who were/were not hospitalized within 1 month of acute COVID diagnosis and men who did/did not need vasopressors. Cohorts were propensity score matched and compared for differences in new ED diagnosis and/or prescription of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i).

After propensity score matching, the long and acute COVID cohorts included 2839 men with an average age of 54.5±16.7 and 55.1±17.1 years respectively (p = 0.21). Men with long COVID were more likely to develop ED or be prescribed PDE5i (3.63%) when compared to men with only acute COVID infections (2.61%) [RR 1.39; 95% CI 1.04, 1.87]. There was no statistically significant risk of developing ED or being prescribed PDE5i for individuals who received vasopressors [RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.77,1.10] or were hospitalized [RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82,1.06].

Link | PDF (Nature International Journal of Impotence Research)

 

Of course the first question this brings to mind is how much funding is being given to biomedical research into this area vs 'treatments to cope'

compared to 'other' post-infective conditions?

And then I realise that viagra exists

 

I cannot see where the funding for this study came from. But the authors declare no conflicts of interest. Surely one of them has received funding from the pharma producing the blue pill at some time in their career, no?