Citations

Abstract Background To date, no scoring system has adequately defined clinical efficacy of erectile dysfunction (ED) therapies when evaluating differences between cohorts or in meta-analytic studies. Aim To outline the minimal criteria required for any therapy to be considered clinically effective in the treatment of ED. Methods An analytic review was performed of standardized ED questionnaires, with a particular emphasis placed on the International Index of Erectile Function, Erectile Function Domain (IIEF-EFD), and the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) concept. The data were used to create a societal position statement and recommendations on best practices within clinical trials to determine treatment efficacy. Outcomes The SMSNA provided 6 key statements and recommendations to suggest best practices and define minimal thresholds for improvements required for an ED therapy to be considered clinically effective. Results The IIEF-EFD currently represents the preferred standardized questionnaire to evaluate for changes in erectile function post-treatment and is the only questionnaire adequate to assess primary outcomes. To claim efficacy, investigational treatments must demonstrate MCID between cohorts (eg, 2-, 5-, or 7-point median improvements between groups among mild, moderate, or severe ED cohorts) in prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, and adequately powered studies. In studies employing mixed-severity ED populations, a method of calculating an adjusted MCID was proposed based on statistical weighting principles. Similarly, a novel method for analyzing differences between cohorts in meta-analytic studies was presented to incorporate the concept of MCID. Based on these principles, the SMSNA would not support efficacy of a therapy based on statistical significance in a meta-analytic study alone. Similarly, studies claiming efficacy utilizing responder approaches (ie, statistically higher percentage of men achieving MCID between cohorts) would not be acceptable unless the median difference between groups on the IIEF-EFD achieved MCID. Clinical Implications The current position statement provides important, evidence-based data and scientific principles to help define what may be considered as an effective therapy in the treatment of ED. This framework provides a basis that decision-makers, clinicians, and patients may use to help differentiate clinically effective therapies. Strengths & Limitations The published literature is limited by a lack of validated instruments and data defining MCID for ED therapies between cohorts and with meta-analytic studies. The current position statement provides important guidance on these areas of ambiguity pending further, definitive data. Conclusion The current position statement provides detailed guidance on key criteria required to conclude efficacy of therapies used to treat ED.

Abstract Background Penile cosmetic enhancement procedures have been performed for many years with varying success. However, they have historically been relegated to niche areas of sexual medicine, with limited data, and have not achieved mainstream adoption. More recently, the topic has been increasingly discussed within academic congresses due to availability of novel techniques, therapies, and procedures. Given their distinctive nature, the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) felt that it was pertinent to develop formal position statements to help guide both patients and sexual medicine providers on the current state of the scientific literature and to give recommendations for future research. Aim The study sought to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for injection and surgical procedures designed to lengthen, augment, or otherwise cosmetically enhance the penis. Methods A review was performed of all scientific literature listed in PubMed from inception through December 2023 relating to penile cosmetic enhancement procedures. Only invasive (injection/surgery) therapies were included due to their distinct risk-benefit profile compared with more conservative treatments (eg, vacuum erection devices, penile traction devices). Similar therapies were categorized, with pertinent data summarized and used to help create relevant position statements. All statements were expert opinion only and were based on analyses of the potential risks and benefits of the specific therapies. Outcomes A total of 6 position statements were issued relating to 5 distinct sexual medicine cosmetic enhancement procedures. Results A consensus opinion was reached by SMSNA leadership on the state of injection/surgical penile cosmetic enhancement procedures as of 2024. Key topic areas addressed included injectable soft tissue fillers, suspensory ligament division, graft-and-flap procedures, silicone sleeve implants, and sliding/slicing techniques. Distinct recommendations were tailored to each therapy and were based solely on the current state of the literature. It is anticipated that future studies will further inform position statements and will lead to ongoing modifications. Clinical Implications The current position statements provide both patients and clinicians evidence-based, expert recommendations on best practices relating to penile cosmetic enhancement procedures. Strengths and Limitations Strengths include the use of an expert panel of sexual medicine clinicians, consensus design, and summary of existing literature. Limitations include expert opinion and limited research on the topic. Conclusion The current SMSNA position statements provide evidence-based, consensus opinions on the appropriate role for penile augmentation and cosmetic procedures in 2024.

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this white paper is to educate health care professionals about the evolution of telemedicine (TM) and to propose a hybrid model that leverages the strengths of traditional in-person medicine as well as virtual medicine while maximizing the safety and quality of men’s sexual health care. Literature Search Strategy A literature search focused on the use of TM in urology and men’s health was performed through PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science (January 1, 2012–April 26, 2022). Keywords included all known permutations of the terminology used to refer to virtual health, care as well as the terminology used to refer to urologic diseases, issues specific to men’s health, and men’s sexual health concerns. Publications that emerged after the literature search that met this criterion also were incorporated. Opinion pieces, letters to the editor, meeting abstracts, and conference proceedings were excluded. Additional resources were retrieved, such as governmental technical reports, legislative updates and reviews, and blogs. This search strategy yielded 1684 records across databases after removal of duplicates. Abstracts from the retrieved records were reviewed for relevance. Relevant publications were defined as those that reported data on any aspect of TM use specific to urology, men’s health, and/or men’s sexual health. If relevance was unclear from the abstract, then the full text of the article was retrieved for a more detailed review. In addition, the published evidence-based practice guidelines relevant to care for erectile dysfunction, Peyronie’s disease, ejaculatory dysfunction, and hypogonadism were retrieved. The most common reasons for article exclusions were a focus on TM use in disciplines other than urology and the absence of data (ie, opinion pieces). After exclusions, a total of 91 publications remained and constituted the evidence base for this paper.