Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

“Doc, if it were you, what would you do?”: a survey of Men’s Health specialists’ personal preferences regarding treatment modalities

A Correction to this article was published on 09 April 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Men’s Health is a urological subspecialty that is at the forefront of innovation, but little data exist evaluating the attitudes that andrologists have toward the current treatment modalities available for managing Men’s Health conditions. A survey of 37 questions asking what providers would choose as treatment for common conditions was distributed online via Survey Monkey to members of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America and European Society for Sexual Medicine. A total of 115 respondents completed the survey after an initial screening question. For erectile dysfunction (ED), 40%, 38%, and 33% of providers indicated that they would use tadalafil daily, tadalafil on demand, or sildenafil on demand, respectively, as first-line phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor therapy. Furthermore, a total of 74% would elect to undergo low-intensity shockwave therapy [67%], platelet rich plasma injections [15%], and stem cell injections [15%]. Sex/behavioral therapy was preferred for both premature (36%) and delayed (52%) ejaculation. Approximately 44% of respondents indicated that they would undergo Collagenase Clostridium Histolyticum injections for Peyronie’s Disease in the acute phase. In the setting of hypogonadal symptoms with borderline low total testosterone levels (300–400 ng/dL), 69% of respondents would pursue testosterone therapy. The prostatic lift procedure was the preferred procedure for men seeking symptom resolution with preservation of ejaculatory function. Many Men’s Health specialists would pursue the least invasive options before considering procedural intervention for any given condition. Providers may shift their treatment preferences toward newer treatment modalities as longer term data become available.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1

Change history

References

  1. 1.

    Smith JA, Robertson S. Men’s health promotion: a new frontier in Australia and the UK? Health Promot Int. 2008;23:283–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bhasin S. A perspective on the evolving landscape in male reproductive medicine. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101:827–36.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Robertson S. Understanding men and health: masculinities, identity and well-being. UK: McGraw-Hill Education; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sotomayor M. The burden of premature ejaculation: the patient’s perspective. J Sex Med. 2005;2:110–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rosen R, Catania J, Lue T, Althof S, Henne J, Hellstrom W, et al. Impact of Peyronie’s disease on sexual and psychosocial functioning: qualitative findings in patients and controls. J Sex Med. 2008;5:1977–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Schnetzler G, Banks I, Kirby M, Zou KH, Symonds T. Characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes of men bypassing the healthcare system when obtaining phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. J Sex Med. 2010;7:1237–46.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Chiang J, Yafi FA, Dorsey PJ Jr, Hellstrom WJ. The dangers of sexual enhancement supplements and counterfeit drugs to “treat” erectile dysfunction. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Serefoglu EC, Hellstrom WJ. Treatment of Peyronie’s disease: 2012 update. Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12:444–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Anaissie J, Yafi FA. A review of surgical strategies for penile prosthesis implantation in patients with Peyronie’s disease. Transl Androl Urol. 2016;5:342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Goldstein I, Lue TF, Padma-Nathan H, Rosen RC, Steers WD, Wicker PA. Oral sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. N. Engl J Med. 1998;338:1397–404.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Porst H, Rosen R, Padma-Nathan H, Goldstein I, Giuliano F, Ulbrich E. The efficacy and tolerability of vardenafil, a new, oral, selective phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, in patients with erectile dysfunction: the first at-home clinical trial. Int J Impot Res. 2001;13:192.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Brock GB, McMahon CG, Chen KK, Costigan T, Shen W, Watkins V, et al. Efficacy and safety of tadalafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: results of integrated analyses. J Urol. 2002;168:1332–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Berkseth KE, Thirumalai A, Amory JK. Pharmacologic therapy in men’s health: hypogonadism, erectile dysfunction, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Med Clin. 2016;100:791–805.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Francis SH, Corbin JD. Molecular mechanisms and pharmacokinetics of phosphodiesterase-5 antagonists. Curr Urol Rep. 2003;4:457–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kitrey ND, Gruenwald I, Appel B, Shechter A, Massarwa O, Vardi Y. Penile low intensity shock wave treatment is able to shift PDE5i nonresponders to responders: a double-blind, Sham Controlled Study. J Urol. 2016;195:1550–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sokolakis I, Hatzichristodoulou G. Clinical studies on low intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Impot Res. 2019;31:177–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Campbell JD, Trock BJ, Oppenheim AR, Anusionwu I, Gor RA, Burnett AL. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that assess the efficacy of low-intensity shockwave therapy for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Therapeutic Adv Urol. 2019;11:1756287219838364.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Capogrosso P, Frey A, Jensen CF, Rastrelli G, Russo GI, Torremade J, et al. Low-intensity shock wave therapy in sexual medicine—clinical recommendations from the European Society of Sexual Medicine (ESSM). J Sex Med. 2019;16:1490–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Peak TC, Anaissie J, Hellstrom WJ. Current perspectives on stem cell therapy for erectile dysfunction. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:247–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Scott S, Roberts M, Chung E. Platelet-rich plasma and treatment of erectile dysfunction: Critical review of literature and global trends in platelet-rich plasma clinics. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7:306–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Sexual Medicine Society of North America. Position statement: ED restorative (regenerative) therapies; 2019. http://www.smsna.org/V1/news/433-smsna-position-statement-on-restorative-therapies-for-ed.

  22. 22.

    Shindel A, Nelson C, Brandes S. Urologist practice patterns in the management of premature ejaculation: a nationwide survey. J Sex Med. 2008;5:199–205.

  23. 23.

    Nguyen HM, Anaissie J, DeLay KJ, Yafi FA, Sikka SC, Hellstrom WJ. Safety and efficacy of collagenase Clostridium histolyticum in the treatment of acute-phase Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2017;14:1220–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Yang KK, Bennett N. Peyronie’s disease and injectable collagenase clostridium histolyticum: safety, efficacy, and improvements in subjective symptoms. Urology. 2016;94:143–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Anaissie J, Yafi FA, DeLay KJ, Traore EJ, Sikka SC, Hellstrom WJ. Impact of number of cycles of collagenase Clostridium histolyticum on outcomes in patients with Peyronie’s disease. Urology. 2017;100:125–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Shindel AW, Bullock TL, Brandes S. Urologist practice patterns in the management of Peyronie’s disease: a nationwide survey. J Sex Med. 2008;5:954–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Nehra A, Alterowitz R, Culkin DJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, Heidelbaugh JJ, et al. Peyronie’s disease: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2015;194:745–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Corona G, Maseroli E, Rastrelli G, Isidori AM, Sforza A, Mannucci E, et al. Cardiovascular risk associated with testosterone-boosting medications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014;13:1327–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Pastuszak AW, Rodriguez KM, Nguyen TM, Khera M. Testosterone therapy and prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2016;5:909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Mulhall JP, Trost LW, Brannigan RE, Kurtz EG, Redmon JB, Chiles KA, et al. Evaluation and management of testosterone deficiency: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2018;200:423–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Bautista OM, Kusek JW, Nyberg LM Jr, McConnell JD, Bain RP, Miller G, et al. Study design of the Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS) trial. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:224–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Siami P, Roehrborn CG, Barkin J, Damiao R, Wyczolkowski M, Duggan A, et al. Combination therapy with dutasteride and tamsulosin in men with moderate-to-severe benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate enlargement: the CombAT (Combination of Avodart® and Tamsulosin) trial rationale and study design. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:770–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    McVary KT, Gange SN, Shore ND, Bolton DM, Cowan BE, Brown BT, et al. Treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH while preserving sexual function: randomized controlled study of prostatic urethral lift. J Sex Med. 2014;11:279–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Roehrborn CG, Gange SN, Shore ND, Giddens JL, Bolton DM, Cowan BE, et al. The prostatic urethral lift for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with prostate enlargement due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: the LIFT Study. J Urol. 2013;190:2161–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Gratzke C, Barber N, Speakman MJ, Berges R, Wetterauer U, Greene D, et al. Prostatic urethral lift vs transurethral resection of the prostate: 2‐year results of the BPH 6 prospective, multicentre, randomized study. BJU Int. 2017;119:767–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Green Z, Westwood J, Somani BK. What’s new in Rezum: a transurethral water vapour therapy for BPH. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20:39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    McVary KT, Rogers T, Roehrborn CG. Rezūm water vapor thermal therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from randomized controlled study. Urology. 2019;126:171–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Gilling PJ, Barber N, Bidair M, Anderson P, Sutton M, Aho T, et al. Randomized controlled trial of aquablation versus transurethral resection of the prostate in benign prostatic hyperplasia: one-year outcomes. Urology. 2019;125:169–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Yafi FA, Tallman CT, Seard ML, Jordan ML. Aquablation outcomes for the US cohort of men with LUTS due to BPH in large prostates (80–150 cc). Int J Impot Res. 2018;30:209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maxwell Towe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

FAY is a consultant for Coloplast. AP is an advisor and speaker for Endo Pharmaceuticals, and received research and fellowship support from this entity. He is also an advisor for Boston Scientific and an advisor for Antares Pharmaceuticals. He is a speaker for Bayer AG. He is the founder of and maintains a leadership role in Woven Health. RC is a consultant for Coloplast, a consultant for Boston Scientific, and a consultant for Endo Pharmaceuticals. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Towe, M., El-Khatib, F., Osman, M. et al. “Doc, if it were you, what would you do?”: a survey of Men’s Health specialists’ personal preferences regarding treatment modalities. Int J Impot Res 33, 303–310 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0263-3

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links