Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study examines erectile dysfunction prevalence and its risk factors in men with type 2 diabetes, indicating the need for routine assessments.
Introduction and Objective: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is common in type 2 diabetes (T2D), but studies often exclude comorbid patients, limiting generalizability. This study examines ED prevalence and risk factors in men with T2D in real-world clinical practice. Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled 473 men with T2D aged ≥25 years at the Freedom from Diabetes Clinic, India. ED was assessed using the IIEF-5 questionnaire; depression and anxiety were evaluated with PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scales. Clinical variables included comorbidities (hypertension, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease [CKD], neuropathy), diabetes duration, treatment regimen, and HbA1c levels. Variables significant on univariate analysis (p<0.05) were entered into binary logistic regression. Results: Median (IQR) age was 47 years (13), diabetes duration 6.6 years (8). Poor glycemic control (HbA1c >7%) was seen in 67.7% of patients despite treatment: oral hypoglycemic agents (OHA) alone (77%), insulin plus OHA (5.5%), or no medications (17.3%). Overall, ED prevalence was 64%: no ED (35.9%), mild ED (31.9%), mild-to-moderate ED (19.9%), moderate ED (9.1%), severe ED (3.2%). Comorbidity prevalence was: hypertension (43%), dyslipidemia (46%), CKD (38%), hypothyroidism (8%), neuropathy (8%). Depression (score>5) and anxiety (score>5) prevalence was 46.5% and 40.6%, respectively. Multivariate analysis found following independent ED predictors: older age (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.03-2.5), depression (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.5-3.7), and insulin plus OHA therapy (n=26; 92% with ED, OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.2-26.9). Conclusion: ED affects two-thirds of men with T2D. Age, depression, and insulin-OHA therapy independently predict ED, highlighting metabolic and psychological contributions. Findings support routine ED screening and mental health assessment in diabetes care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
VYAWAHARE et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: