A Review of Economic Evaluations of Erectile Dysfunction Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common and costly urologic condition with increasing prevalence as men age. Cost-effectiveness of ED therapies and whether cost-effectiveness varies for different populations of men remains underexplored. AIM: To review and summarize available published data on the economic evaluation of ED therapies and to identify gaps in the literature that still need to be addressed. METHODS: All relevant peer-reviewed publications and conference abstracts were reviewed and incorporated. RESULTS: There are a number of medical and surgical treatment options available for ED. The economic evaluation of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, particularly sildenafil, has been well described. However, minimal research has been conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of intracavernosal injections, intraurethral suppositories, penile prosthesis surgery, vacuum erection devices, and other emerging therapies in men with different causes of ED. CONCLUSION: Available economic evaluations of ED therapies are dated, do not reflect present-day physician, pharmaceutical, and device costs, fail to account for patient comorbidities, and may not be generalizable to today's ED patients. Substantial research is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ED treatments across different patient populations, countries, and reimbursement systems. Rezaee ME, Ward CE, Brandes ER, et al. A Review of Economic Evaluations of Erectile Dysfunction Therapies. Sex Med Rev 2019;8:497-503.

Trends in penile prosthesis implantation and analysis of predictive factors for removal.

PURPOSE: This study aims to analyze patient demographics, hospital characteristics, and clinical risk factors which predict penile prosthesis removal. We also examine costs of penile prosthesis removal and trends in inflatable versus non-inflatable penile prostheses implantation in the USA from 2003 to 2015. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis from Premier Perspective Database was completed using data from 2003 to 2015. We compared the relative proportion of inflatable versus non-inflatable penile prostheses implanted. We separated the prosthesis removal group based on indication for removal-Group 1 (infection), Group 2 (mechanical complication), and Group 3 (all explants). All groups were compared to a control group of patients with penile implants who were never subsequently explanted. Multivariate analysis was performed to analyze patient and hospital factors which predicted removal. Cost comparison was performed between the explant groups. RESULTS: There were 5085 penile prostheses implanted with a stable relative proportion of inflatable versus non-inflatable prosthesis over the 13-year study period. There were 3317 explantations. Patient factors associated with prosthesis removal were non-black race, Charlson Comorbidity Index, diabetes, and HIV status. Hospital factors associated with removal included non-teaching status, hospital region, year of removal, and annual surgeon volume. Median hospitalization costs of all explantations were $10,878. Explantations due to infection cost $11,252 versus $8602 for mechanical complications. CONCLUSIONS: This large population-based study demonstrates a stable trend in inflatable versus non-inflatable prosthesis implantation. We also identify patient and hospital factors that predict penile prosthesis removal which has clinical utility for patient risk stratification and counseling.