Peyronie's disease: clinical treatment

A Critical Analysis of Reporting in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Peyronie's Disease Literature

BACKGROUND

Despite an increasing number of publications on Peyronie's disease (PD), evidence-based clinical decision-making remains challenging due to the small number of well-designed clinical trials.

AIM

To perform a critical analysis of reporting quality in PD systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA).

METHODS

Study protocol registration was performed on the Open Science Framework platform. In January 2021, a systematic electronic search of the Medline/PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Scopus, Joanne Briggs Institute, and Cochrane databases was performed. Search terms included "Peyronie's disease" and "systematic review OR meta-analysis OR meta-analysis." Eligibility criteria were English-language, relevance to PD and specification of "systematic review" or "meta-analysis" in the title or abstract. Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence were used to classify original studies reviewed within each publication. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBIS tool. Data were tabulated and reported as means with standard deviation, median with interquartile range and t-testing as appropriate. Strength of association between variables was calculated using Pearson correlation coefficient. Statistical analyses were performed on RStudio (version 1.4.1106).

OUTCOMES

Outcomes included review type, level of evidence, authorship, journal, publication date, "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR-2) score and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) score.

RESULTS

From 1974 to 2021, 340 articles were identified. After review, 17 full length articles were included. Thirteen were SR, 2 MA and 2 was combined. Significant heterogeneity was seen in evidence level of included studies. There was median 54% adherence to AMSTAR-2 criteria and 74% adherence to PRISMA criteria. Overall AMSTAR-2 confidence rating was Critically Low in 11 of 17 studies. Correlation analysis revealed very high positive association between AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA adherence (+0.95). ROBIS revealed "High" concern regarding methods used to collect data and appraise 12/17 studies (71%), and "High" concern regarding synthesis and findings in 8 of 17 studies (47%).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Many SR include markedly heterogenous levels of evidence and fail to meet accepted methodological criteria for reporting.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

Main strengths include extensive literature review and analysis of standardized study reporting. One limitation is that aggregate scoring of AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA is not intended as primary method of quality assessment; however effect was minimized by reporting critical domains, overall quality assessments and specifics on globally poorly reported domains.

CONCLUSION

More high quality randomized controlled PD trials are necessary; SR and MA should focus on these studies alone. Bole R, Gottlich HC, Ziegelmann MJ, et al. A Critical Analysis of Reporting in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Peyronie's Disease Literature. J Sex Med 2022;19:629-640.

Trends in treatment of Peyronie's disease in adult men in the United States from 2008 to 2017-results from an encounter and claims database

Treatments for Peyronie's Disease (PD) include oral medications, intralesional injections, and surgery. Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CCh) is the only FDA-approved treatment for PD. We sought to examine current trends in treatment of PD across the United States. Using data in the MarketScan Database, we conducted a retrospective study of men with PD in the United States. Cases were identified by ICD-9 and 10 codes, and treatments were identified using NDC and CPT codes. Treatment rates were analyzed using a linear regression model, and a Cox proportional hazard function test was performed for time-to-treatment analysis. About 27.8% of men with PD were treated within a year of diagnosis. The annual treatment rate increased from 23.2 to 35.4%, and intralesional injection was the most used treatment. Over the study period, the percentage of men receiving treatment with oral medication increased from 0.66 to 20.5%, while the use of intralesional injection and surgery decreased. Increased odds of treatment were observed in men 45-54 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.50; p = 0) and in the southern region (OR 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.56; p = 0). Trends in treatment of PD have changed over time. Intralesional injection remains the most used treatment option for men with PD.

Preoperative Psychological Evaluation for Patients Referred for Penile Prosthesis Implantation

BACKGROUND

Patients may remain dissatisfied after penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Studies showing the results of standardized protocols for preoperative psychological evaluation are lacking.

PURPOSE

To estimate the rate of patients considered psychologically unfit for penile prosthesis implantation and to compare their characteristics with those considered fit after the implementation of a standardized psychological profile evaluation protocol for men with erectile dysfunction.

METHODS

Cross-sectional evaluation of men referred for penile prosthesis implantation by their urologists, based on organic causes for the erectile dysfunction, including a semi-structured (sexual and relational anamnesis of the patient and their partner, information about expectations about the results of the penile prosthesis implantation and possible complications) and a structured instrument including validated tools for the evaluation of depression and/or anxiety symptoms. These were the Self Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20), the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey for quality of life, and the Five-Factor Model (FFM) for behavioral tendencies. After at least 3 interviews, the psychology team rated the patients as fit or unfit for surgery. Unfit patients were those with any of a set of warning signals indicating risk for dissatisfaction even after penile implantation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The prevalence of patients considered "unfit for surgery."

RESULTS

The quality of life scores were good, but 27.6% of patients (95% confidence interval, CI: 16.7-40.9%) were unfit for surgery. Being unfit was associated with obesity (P = .027), anxiety and/or depression symptoms (P < .001) and high levels of neuroticism (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

The preoperative evaluation protocol combining standardized and validated tools shows that more than one-quarter of patients with a medical indication for penile prosthesis implantation were not in good psychological conditions for the surgery. The development of psychological evaluation protocols can help identify patients in need of adequate care before penile implantation. M de Mello Ferreira dos Reis, EA Corrêa Barros, M Pollone, et al. Preoperative Psychological Evaluation for Patients Referred for Penile Prosthesis Implantation. Sex Med 2021;9:100311.