Allen D. Seftel

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical strategy for the diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (search dates 1/1/1965 to 7/29/17) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction. Evidence-based statements were based on body of evidence strength Grade A, B, or C and were designated as Strong, Moderate, and Conditional Recommendations with additional statements presented in the form of Clinical Principles or Expert Opinions. RESULTS: The American Urological Association has developed an evidence-based guideline on the management of erectile dysfunction. This document is designed to be used in conjunction with the associated treatment algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Using the shared decision-making process as a cornerstone for care, all patients should be informed of all treatment modalities that are not contraindicated, regardless of invasiveness or irreversibility, as potential first-line treatments. For each treatment, the clinician should ensure that the man and his partner have a full understanding of the benefits and risk/burdens associated with that choice.

PURPOSE: We quantified the prevalence of diagnosed hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus and depression in male health plan members with erectile dysfunction (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a nationally representative managed care claims database that covered 51 health plans with 28 million lives for 1995 through 2002. Based on 272325 identified patients with ED population and age specific prevalence rates were calculated for the same period. RESULTS: The crude population prevalence rates were 41.6% for hypertension, 42.4% for hyperlipidemia, 20.2% for diabetes mellitus, 11.1% for depression, 23.9% for hypertension and hyperlipidemia, 12.8% for hypertension and diabetes mellitus, and 11.5% for hyperlipidemia and depression. The crude age specific prevalence rates varied across age groups significantly for hypertension (4.5% to 68.4%), hyperlipidemia (3.9% to 52.3%), and diabetes mellitus (2.8% to 28.7%), and significantly less for depression (5.8% to 15.0%). Region adjusted population prevalence rates were 41.2% for hypertension, 41.8% for hyperlipidemia, 19.7% for diabetes mellitus and 11.9% for depression. Only 87163 patients with ED (32%) had no comorbid diagnosis of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus or depression. CONCLUSION: Hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus and depression were prevalent in patients with ED. This evidence supported the proposition that ED shares common risk factors with these 4 concurrent conditions. Therefore, as a pathophysiological event, ED could be viewed as a potential observable marker for these concurrent diseases. This finding suggests that clinicians could include ED in the assessment profile of these concurrent conditions for earlier detection and treatment.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the diagnosis and treatment of Peyronie's disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using the PubMed®, EMBASE® and Cochrane databases (search dates 1/1/1965 to 1/26/15) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of PD. The review yielded an evidence base of 303 articles after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: The systematic review was used to create guideline statements regarding treatment of PD. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high quality evidence; high certainty), B (moderate quality evidence; moderate certainty), or C (low quality evidence; low certainty). Evidence-based statements of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendation were developed based on benefits and risks/burdens to patients. Additional consensus statements related to the diagnosis of PD are provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions due to insufficient published evidence. CONCLUSIONS: There is a continually expanding literature on PD; the Panel notes that this document constitutes a clinical strategy and is not intended to be interpreted rigidly. The most effective approach for a particular patient is best determined by the individual clinician and patient in the context of that patient's history, values, and goals for treatment. As the science relevant to PD evolves and improves, the strategies presented here will be amended to remain consistent with the highest standards of clinical care.