Prevalence and predictors of erectile dysfunction among men in the diabetes prevention program outcomes study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine burden and identify correlates of erectile dysfunction (ED) among men with prediabetes (PreD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) enrolled in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) Outcomes Study (DPPOS). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The 2017 DPPOS visit included administration of the International Index of Erectile Function. Of 648 male participants, 88 % (n = 568) completed the survey. Associations between sociodemographic, behavioral, clinical, and glycemic measures at time of ED assessment, and ED were examined using multivariable logistic regression models in men with PreD and T2D separately. RESULTS: Overall, 218 (38 %) men met ED criteria. Prevalence was similar in men with PreD (41 %) and T2D (37 %) (p = 0.4). In all men, age (p < 0.001) increased odds of ED. Among men with PreD, those assigned to intensive lifestyle intervention (ILS), but not metformin, had decreased odds of ED compared with the placebo group (OR = 0.35, 95 % CI = 0.13, 0.94). Non-Hispanic White race was associated with increased odds of ED compared with other races (OR = 4.3; 95 % CI = 1.92, 9.65). Among men with T2D, ED risk did not differ by DPP treatment assignment; however, individuals with metabolic syndrome defined by National Cholesterol Education Program criteria, had increased odds of ED (OR = 1.85, 95 % CI = 1.14, 3.01), as did individuals with depression (OR = 2.05; 95 % CI = 1.10, 3.79). CONCLUSIONS: ED is prevalent in men with PreD and T2D. Our finding of reduced odds of ED in men randomized to ILS and with PreD suggests a potential opportunity for risk mitigation in the prediabetes interval. In men who have progressed to T2D, metabolic factors appear to be associated with ED.

The 10-year priapism experience: identifying clearer targets for intervention.

Background: There is a paucity of data on the clinical experience of priapism. Moreover, little work has explored differences in practice patterns between urologists and emergency medicine (EM) physicians. Our primary objective was to understand the priapism patient population and identify targets that may guide clinical translational efforts. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on two priapism datasets from June 2008-July 2018-one focused on patients managed by urology and another on patients managed exclusively by EM physicians. Primary areas of interest included the duration of priapism and acute interventions during the consultation. Time to presentation, prior interventions and evaluation was also documented. Results: Over the course of 10 years, there were 396 encounters for priapism in 95 unique patients. Urology was consulted 199 times in 83 unique patients and EM physicians managed 197 encounters in 15 unique patients. In the urology cohort, median duration of priapism was 6 hours, and 72% of patients required further intervention. For the EM cohort, median duration of priapism was 4 hours and 89% of patients required further intervention. Amongst all patients, nine patients presented 4 or more times for a total of 294 encounters. Conclusions: Urology and EM managed a similar number of encounters, but EM patients had a shorter duration of priapism. Understanding the role of the EM physician and the urologist can help tailor joint curriculum efforts for initial priapism management while focusing on more complex management for urology trainees. A small proportion of patients accounted for the majority of visits secondary to recurrent ischemic priapism indicating a need to target prevention of these episodes on an outpatient basis.