Analysis of Direct-to-Consumer Marketing of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Erectile Dysfunction in the US

Variability in Methodology of Erectile Dysfunction Regenerative Therapy Trials on ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the variability in the criteria of erectile dysfunction (ED) regenerative therapy trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

METHODS

Interventional trials on ClinicalTrials.gov with the keywords "erectile dysfunction" and variations of "shockwave," "platelet rich plasma," "stem cell," "regenerative," and "restorative" were examined. Inclusion/exclusion criteria and primary/secondary outcomes were compared between extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT), platelet rich plasma and stem cell injections (PRP/SC), and other regenerative therapies (ORT) groups.

RESULTS

Of the 92 trials analyzed, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score was the most common primary outcome (72%), with a higher prevalence in ESWT trials than PRP/SC or ORT trials (89% vs 44% and 58%, P <.001). Safety/tolerability was a primary outcome for 44% of PRP/SC trials and 25% of ORT trials but no ESWT trials (P <.001). ESWT trials more frequently had sexual/romantic relationship-based inclusion criteria and cancer treatment-related exclusion criteria than PRP/SC and ORT trials.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial variability in the inclusion/exclusion criteria and outcome measures among ED regenerative therapy trials. ESWT trials most frequently utilized IIEF and had the strictest inclusion/exclusion criteria, suggesting more rigorous and functional outcome-based studies. Conversely, PRP/SC and ORT trials, but not ESWT trials, had safety/tolerability as a primary outcome, likely due to the experimental nature of these therapies. The variability in inclusion/exclusion criteria and outcome measures limits comparison of the various ED regenerative therapies.

A primer on the restorative therapies for erectile dysfunction: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common condition that affects millions worldwide. Patients and urologists alike are seeking alternative therapies that can provide long-lasting results in the treatment of ED. This review provides a comprehensive overview of restorative treatments available for ED, such as platelet-rich plasma, stem cell therapy, and shockwave therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this narrative review is to provide a primer for urologists and general practitioners on the basics of implementing ED restorative therapies in their practice.

METHODS

The PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles in the English language through August 31, 2023, that included key terms such as "erectile dysfunction," "restorative therapy," "shockwave therapy," "platelet-rich plasma," "stem cell therapy," and "stromal vascular fraction." Reference lists of selected studies were manually reviewed to find articles not identified by the initial database search.

RESULTS

Shockwave therapy has demonstrated effectiveness in treating ED, with devices like the Medispec ED1000 and Storz Duolith showing statistically significant improvements in patient scores for International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)-Erectile Function scores in clinical trials. In reported studies of platelet-rich plasma injections, a substantial percentage of patients reached a minimal clinically important difference in the IIEF-Erectile Function scale after treatment. Studies of ED treatment with stem cell therapy, while limited and with small sample sizes, have demonstrated encouraging improvements in patient scores for the abridged 5-item version of the IIEF after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Shockwave, platelet-rich plasma, and stem cell therapies are important, novel, noninvasive restorative treatments for ED that can provide relief for patients wishing to avoid a more invasive approach. While these therapies have shown promising results in clinical trials, more research is required to establish them as standardized and efficacious options in the management of ED.

Platelet-rich plasma for erectile dysfunction: a review of the current research landscape

INTRODUCTION

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the inability to achieve or maintain erection for satisfactory sexual performance. ED drastically reduces the quality of life for men and their partners and is commonly linked to comorbid conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. As a result, clinicians and researchers are working to improve treatments for ED. Current guideline-approved ED treatments include oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, intraurethral alprostadil, penile intracavernosal injections, and penile prosthesis surgery. Today, there is increasing interest in restorative therapies such as intracavernosal platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the management of ED.

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review describes the current trials investigating intracavernosal PRP for ED and proposes future directions to increase the strength of evidence to support use of PRP in this population.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Science Direct, and Scopus was performed to identify all randomized clinical trials using PRP for the treatment of ED.

RESULTS

We identified 4 randomized clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of PRP for ED. We found significant heterogeneity among study protocols, including collection of PRP, dosing of PRP, and follow-up.

CONCLUSION

While intracavernosal PRP is considered safe, its efficacy for the management of ED remains unknown due to variability among clinical trials.

Platelet-rich Plasma for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

We assessed the safety and efficacy of 2 injections of platelet-rich plasma for treating mild to moderate erectile dysfunction by conducting a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Men with mild to moderate erectile dysfunction (International Index of Erectile Function scores 11-25) were randomized to receive either 2 injections of platelet-rich plasma or placebo separated by 1 month. Primary outcome was percentage of men meeting minimum clinically important difference at 1 month after the second injection. Secondary outcomes were change in International Index of Erectile Function at 1, 3, and 6 months, and changes in penile vascular parameters and adverse events at 6 months.

RESULTS

We randomized 61 men: 28 into platelet-rich plasma and 33 into placebo. There was no difference between groups in percentage of men meeting minimum clinically important difference at 1 month: 14 (58.3%) in platelet-rich plasma vs 15 (53.6%) in placebo (P = .730). Mean International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function domain changed from 17.4 (95% CI 15.8-19.0) to 21 (17.9-24.0) at 1 month in men receiving platelet-rich plasma, vs 18.6 (17.3-19.8) to 21.6 (19.1-24.1) in the placebo group; however, there was no significant difference between groups (P = .756). There were no major adverse events and only 1 minor adverse event in each group. There were no changes in penile Doppler parameters from baseline to 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial suggest that 2 injections of intracavernosal platelet-rich plasma separated by 1 month in men with mild to moderate erectile dysfunction is safe, but we found no difference in efficacy between platelet-rich plasma and placebo.

Guideline-Nonconformant Investigational Treatments for Erectile Dysfunction: What are Patients Learning?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the validity of YouTube content on shockwave, platelet-rich plasma, and stem cell therapies for erectile dysfunction (ED). The consumerization of men's health is particularly notable among regenerative ED treatments, and the popularity of these treatments has been amplified by social media sites such as YouTube.

METHODS

We searched YouTube utilizing the following terms: "shockwave therapy-," "platelet-rich plasma- and "stem cell therapy-" "-for erectile dysfunction." The first 50 resulting videos per query were screened (inclusion criteria: relevant title/content, English language, >100 views) and judged by 2 independent graders using the validated DISCERN instrument for consumer health information. Regression analysis assessed association of video characteristics with DISCERN score.

RESULTS

Seventy-one unique videos met criteria. More content featured non-physicians (37%) or non-urologist physicians (35%) than urologists (28%). Mean DISCERN score was low at 42.8 of 80. DISCERN score significantly differed by video category and characteristics. Educational and urologist-featuring videos were associated with higher score. News reports were associated with lower score. Only 3 videos mentioned investigational/experimental status of the therapies. Only 2 cited society guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Most YouTube videos on regenerative ED therapies are unreliable and from non-urologists. The misrepresentation of proven efficacy may be encouraging patients to seek these still investigational treatments at high fiscal costs to the patient. Videos with urologists were more likely to be higher quality and guideline based. The urological and academic communities should continue to leverage the power of social media to provide evidence-backed consumer health information in this space.

An Online Investigation Into Direct-to-Consumer Men's Health Clinics: The Who, What, and Where

OBJECTIVE

To characterize direct-to-consumer (DTC) men's health clinics by reviewing their online content. Increasing numbers of patients are seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED) and hypogonadism from DTC "men's health" clinics. Treatments are often used off-label, with lack of transparency of provider credentials and qualifications.

METHODS

We identified DTC Men's Health Clinics in the United States by internet search by state using the terms, "Men's Health Clinic," and "Low T Center." All stand-alone clinics were reviewed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-three clinics were reviewed, with 147 (65.9%) offered ED treatments and 196 (87.9%) offering testosterone replacement, and 120 (53.8%) offering both ED treatment and testosterone replacement. Of those clinics offering ED treatments, 93 (63.3%) advertised shockwave therapy and 84 (57.1%) PRP therapy. There were 56 (38%) who offered shockwave therapy and PRP. ICI was significantly more likely to be offered if there was a urologist on staff (p <.001). Clinic providers represented 20 different medical and alternative medicine specialties. Internal medicine was most common (17.4%), followed by family medicine (11.1%). A nonphysician (nurse practitioner or physician assistant) was listed as the primary provider in 10 clinics (4.5%) and 45 clinics (20.1%) did not list their providers. Urologists were listed as the primary provider in 10.3% of clinics. A naturopathic provider was listed as a staff member in 22 (11.6%) of clinics.

CONCLUSION

There is significant heterogeneity and misinformation available to the public regarding men's health. Familiarity with and insight into practice patterns of "men's health" clinics will help provide informed patient care and counseling.

Assessing the quality and readability of online content on shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction

Patients are becoming increasingly reliant on online platforms for obtaining health information. Previous research has shown that the quality of information available on the internet regarding novel medical therapies is generally poor and frequently misleading. Shock wave therapy represents a novel restorative therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) that has recently gained attention. We hypothesised that online sources regarding shock wave therapy for ED would be fraught with misleading claims and unreliable health information. Our objective was to evaluate the quality and readability of online medical information on shock wave therapy as a treatment for ED. Websites were generated using a Google search of 'shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction' with location filters disabled. Readability was analysed using the Readable software (Readable.com, Horsham, United Kingdom). Quality was assessed independently by three reviewers using the DISCERN tool. Articles were subdivided into those from private clinic websites and those from universities or news media websites. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Student's t test. Nine articles that resulted from the Google search had mean readability scores as follows: Flesch-Kincaid grade level (10.8), Gunning-Fog Index (13.67), Coleman-Liau Index (12.74), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index (13.33), FORCAST Grade Level (11.33), and Automated Readability Index (11.08). The mean Flesch Reading Ease score was 46.4. The articles had a mean DISCERN score of 3.1, suggesting 'moderate quality' content. Articles from universities (n = 2) or news sources (n = 3) had significantly higher DISCERN scores than articles from private medical practices (n = 4). There was no difference in readability scores between the groups. Articles from private clinics are just as readable as those from universities or news media, but they are significantly more biased and misleading. The current online material relating to shock wave therapy for ED may not adequately inform patients in their medical decisions making, thereby necessitating closer collaboration between the sources disseminating information and urologists.