Citations

ABSTRACT Introduction The medical literature contains several definitions of premature ejaculation (PE). The most commonly quoted definition, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition-Text Revision, and other definitions of PE are all authority based rather than evidence based, and have no support from controlled clinical and/or epidemiological studies. Aim The aim of this article is to develop a contemporary, evidence-based definition of PE. Methods In August 2007, the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) appointed several international experts in PE to an Ad Hoc Committee for the Definition of Premature Ejaculation. The committee met in Amsterdam in October 2007 to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of current definitions of PE, to critique the evidence in support of the constructs of ejaculatory latency, ejaculatory control, sexual satisfaction, and personal/interpersonal distress, and to propose a new evidence-based definition of PE. Results The committee unanimously agreed that the constructs that are necessary to define PE are rapidity of ejaculation, perceived self-efficacy and control, and negative personal consequences from PE. The committee proposed that lifelong PE be defined as “. . . a male sexual dysfunction characterized by ejaculation which always or nearly always occurs prior to or within about one minute of vaginal penetration, and the inability to delay ejaculation on all or nearly all vaginal penetrations, and negative personal consequences, such as distress, bother, frustration and/or the avoidance of sexual intimacy.” This definition is limited to men with lifelong PE who engage in vaginal intercourse. The panel concluded that there are insufficient published objective data to propose an evidence-based definition of acquired PE. Conclusion The ISSM definition of lifelong PE represents the first evidence-based definition of PE. This definition will hopefully lead to the development of new tools and Patient Reported Outcome measures for diagnosing and assessing the efficacy of treatment interventions and encourage ongoing research into the true prevalence of this disorder and the efficacy of new pharmacological and psychological treatments.

Background— Prior studies have demonstrated an inconsistent association between patients’ arrival time for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and their subsequent medical care and outcomes. Methods and Results— Using a contemporary national clinical registry, we examined differences in medical care and in-hospital mortality among AMI patients admitted during regular hours (weekdays 7 am to 7 pm ) versus off-hours (weekends, holidays, and 7 pm to 7 am weeknights). The study cohort included 62 814 AMI patients from the Get With the Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease database admitted to 379 hospitals throughout the United States from July 2000 through September 2005. Overall, 33 982 (54.1%) patients arrived during off-hours. Compared with those arriving during regular hours, eligible off-hour patients were slightly less likely to receive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 0.98), had longer door-to-balloon times (median, 110 versus 85 minutes; P <0.0001), and were less likely to achieve door-to-balloon ≤90 minutes (adjusted OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.39). Arrival during off-hours was associated with slightly lower overall revascularization rates (adjusted OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.97). No measurable differences, however, were found in in-hospital mortality between regular hours and off-hours in the overall AMI, ST-elevated MI, and non–ST-elevated MI cohorts (adjusted OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.06; adjusted OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.18; and adjusted OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.04, respectively). Similar observations were made across most age and sex subgroups and with an alternative definition for arrival time (weekends/holidays versus weekdays). Conclusions— Despite slightly fewer primary percutaneous coronary interventions and overall revascularizations and significantly longer door-to-balloon times, patients presenting with AMI during off-hours had in-hospital mortality similar to those presenting during regular hours.

Abstract Aberrant crypt foci (ACF) are the earliest visible neoplastic lesions in the colorectum. The natural history of these lesions and their role in the adenoma-carcinoma sequence are unknown. We studied ACF in a subset of patients randomized to placebo (n = 17), celecoxib (200 mg twice daily; n = 15), or celecoxib (400 mg twice daily; n = 13) in the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib (APC) trial. Magnification chromoendoscopy was done to identify, count, and biopsy ACF within the rectum at baseline and after 8 to 12 months of treatment. A total of 655 ACF were identified in 45 patients. We examined 70 of these ACF histologically, and all 70 were nondysplastic. Cohort characteristics and APC trial treatment results for substudy patients were similar to those of the overall APC trial. There was no significant modulation of ACF by celecoxib (versus placebo; P = 0.77). Immunohistochemical comparison of ACF with adjacent normal mucosa showed that ACF had an increased proliferative index as determined by Ki-67 (P &lt; 0.0001), but lacked other features of neoplasia such as increased cyclooxygenase-2 expression and microvessel density, nuclear localization of β-catenin, or decreased expression of the tumor suppressors SMAD4, Estrogen Receptor α, or MGMT. Only baseline SMAD4 expression in ACF correlated with posttreatment adenoma recurrence (independent of treatment arm; P = 0.01). The presence or number of nondysplastic ACF did not correlate with a higher risk of synchronous advanced or recurrent adenomas. Our overall results indicated that nondysplastic ACF were not accurate surrogate endpoint biomarkers of recurrent colorectal adenomas in the APC trial.

While frequently discussed as a standard treatment for the management of an infected shoulder replacement, there is little information on the outcome of two-stage re-implantation. We examined the outcome of 17 consecutive patients (19 shoulders) who were treated between 1995 and 2004 with a two-stage re-implantation for the treatment of a deep-infection after shoulder replacement. All 19 shoulders were followed for a minimum of two years or until the time of further revision surgery. The mean clinical follow-up was for 35 months (24 to 80). The mean radiological follow-up was 27 months (7 to 80). There were two excellent results, four satisfactory and 13 unsatisfactory. In 12 of the 19 shoulders (63%) infection was considered to be eradicated. The mean pain score improved from 4.2 (3 to 5 (out of 5)) to 1.8 (1 to 4). The mean elevation improved from 42° (0° to 140°) to 89° (0° to 165°), mean external rotation from 30° (0° to 90°) to 43° (0° to 90°), and mean internal rotation from the sacrum to L5. There were 14 complications. Our study suggests that two-stage re-implantation for an infected shoulder replacement is associated with a high rate of unsatisfactory results, marginal success at eradicating infection and a high complication rate.

Purpose Early clinical studies with gefitinib showed promising efficacy and mild toxicity in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Thus, gefitinib was an ideal agent to evaluate in a maintenance setting in stage III disease. Patients and Methods Untreated patients with stage III NSCLC, a performance score of 0 to 1, and adequate organ function were eligible. All patients received cisplatin 50 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 plus etoposide 50 mg/m 2 on days 1 to 5, every 28 days for two cycles with concurrent thoracic radiation (1.8- to 2-Gy fractions per day; total dose, 61 Gy) followed by three cycles of docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 . Patients whose disease did not progress were randomly assigned to gefitinib 250 mg/d or placebo until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or the end of 5 years. The planned sample size was 672 patients to confer power of 0.89 to detect a 33% increase over the expected median survival time of 21 months (one-sided P = .025, log-rank test). Random assignment was stratified by stage, histology, and measurable versus nonmeasurable disease. Results Enrollment began in July 2001. An unplanned interim analysis conducted in April 2005 rejected the alternative hypothesis of improved survival at the P = .0015 level for 243 randomly assigned patients. The study closed, and preliminary results were reported. Now, with a median follow-up time of 27 months, median survival time was 23 months for gefitinib (n = 118) and 35 months for placebo (n = 125; two-sided P = .013). The toxic death rate was 2% with gefitinib compared with 0% for placebo. Conclusion In this unselected population, gefitinib did not improve survival. Decreased survival was a result of tumor progression and not gefitinib toxicity.