Implantable Penile Prosthesis for Erectile Dysfunction: Insurance Coverage in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: A manufacturer's benefit verification database was evaluated to ascertain United States health plan insurance coverage for implantable penile prostheses for erectile dysfunction. METHODS: All-payer and employer-sponsored health plan benefit verification databases were queried to determine implantable penile prosthesis approval status. For the all-payer analysis, data by payer were available and presented for 2019-2021 to assess approval status varied by payer and over time. For the employer-sponsored health plan analysis, data by payer were available from 2018-2021. RESULTS: Benefit verification records for the all-payer database were available for 3,167 patients in 2019, 3,016 in 2020, and 2,837 in 2021. Insurance type was preferred provider organization (27.5%), Medicare Advantage (26.9%), Medicare (15.9%), or point-of-service (10.5%). Most patients were approved or verified for implantable penile prosthesis coverage (79.4% in 2019, 79.6% in 2020, and 78.4% in 2021). Coverage was most extensive for government-based insurance (Medicare 98.7%, Medicare Advantage 97.1%, Tricare 100%, and Veterans Affairs 80.0%) but was also favorable for commercial insurance (75.0%). The most common reason for lack of coverage was employer exclusion; the proportion of patients with no coverage due to exclusion increased from 13.5% in 2019 to 17.5% in 2021. Analyses of the employer-sponsored health plan database (n=3,083 patients) showed that 63.1% of patients were approved or verified for coverage and 34.2% did not have coverage due to health plan exclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 80% of patients had implantable penile prosthesis coverage. Employer exclusion was the most common reason for lagging coverage; rates of employer exclusion increased 29.3% from 2019-2021.

Long-Term Survival Rates of Inflatable Penile Prostheses: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The purpose of this study was to determine long-term survival of inflatable penile prosthesis (PP) and identify potential factors that may influence device survival. We performed a systematic review of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of men treated with inflatable PP with at least 5 years of device survival data. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate device survival at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years of follow-up. The robustness of the meta-analysis results was evaluated in a 1-study removed sensitivity analysis and sources of heterogeneity among studies were investigated with subgroup analysis. In 12 studies (20,161 patients; median age 57 years), PP device survival was 93.3% at 1 year, 91.0% at 3 years, 87.2% at 5 years, 76.8% at 10 years, 63.7% at 15 years, and 52.9% at 20 years. The results of the meta-analysis were not significantly influenced by single study effects in a 1-study removed sensitivity analysis. In a subgroup analysis, 5-year device survival rates were 90.6% vs 82.1% (P = .01) comparing newer vs older studies; no other patient or study design characteristic was statistically associated with device survival rates. In conclusion, the median device survival time of an inflatable PP is approximately 20 years. The factors responsible for improved device survival in newer studies remain unclear and warrant further study.

The Epidemic of COVID-19-Related Erectile Dysfunction: A Scoping Review and Health Care Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 infection is expected to be associated with an increased likelihood of erectile dysfunction (ED). Considering the high transmissibility of COVID-19, ED may be a concerning consequence for a large segment of the population. AIMS: To (1) summarize existing published evidence for the impact of COVID-19 on the prevalence, severity, treatment, and management of ED; and (2) identify health-related trends in the emerging literature and identify gaps in the existing research literature and make recommendations for future research needs in the area. METHODS: A scoping literature search was conducted on April 27, 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-ScR) checklist was followed. The literature search was performed in PubMed using the terms: COVID-19, erectile, sexual, and dysfunction. A total of 693 publications were screened for relevance. Studies were appraised for their level of evidence based on study design and the rigor of methodology. RESULTS: The evidence that COVID-19 infection causes or impacts ED is compelling. Four topics emerged regarding the nature of the association between COVID-19 and ED: (1) the biological impact of COVID-19 infection on ED; (2) the mental health impact of COVID-19 on ED; (3) the impact of COVID-19 on the management of ED and access to ED treatment; and (4) health disparities and the impact of COVID-19 on ED. Long-term and well-designed studies are needed to clarify the extent of the impact of COVID-19 on ED. The pandemic exposed several vulnerabilities within worldwide healthcare and social systems. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has a uniquely harmful impact on men's health and erectile function through biological, mental health, and healthcare access mechanisms. As the pandemic wanes, strategies to identify long-term effects and additional health care support may be needed to adequately mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on men's health. Hsieh T-C, Edwards NC, Bhattacharyya SK, et al.The Epidemic of COVID-19-Related Erectile Dysfunction: A Scoping Review and Health Care Perspective. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:286-310.

The Quality of Life and Economic Burden of Erectile Dysfunction.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common disorder in adult males that results in withdrawal from sexual intimacy, psychosocial problems (ie, poor self-esteem, depression, anxiety), decreased work productivity, and reduction in quality of life for both the men suffering from ED and their female partners. A pragmatic literature review was undertaken using PUBMED to identify original research studies published over the past 20 years that assessed the impact of ED on a male's quality of life, the impact of ED on a female partner's quality of life, or the economic impact of ED on employers. Twenty studies were selected for inclusion. This review showed that men with ED have a poorer quality of life than men without ED (n=9 studies). Results from a global burden of illness study showed that men with ED report substantially lower SF-36 Mental and Physical Component Summary scores and SF-6D scores compared to men without ED (p<0.001). Similarly, the partner is also negatively impacted by ED due to relationship difficulties and decreased sexual satisfaction (n=8 studies). Results from the Female Experience of Men's Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality study showed that females were significantly less satisfied and engaged in sexual activity less frequently after their partner developed ED (p<0.001). ED also poses a substantial economic burden on employers (n=3 studies). An observational study in men aged 40-70 showed that men with ED had significantly higher rates of absenteeism (2x) and work productivity impairment compared to men without ED (p<0.001). Overall, this contemporary review demonstrated that ED imposes a substantial quality of life burden on men and their female partners as well as a significant economic burden on their employers. These findings underscore the need for more education and awareness of the burden of ED and greater access to appropriate ED treatments to help alleviate this burden.

Addressing Health-Care System Inequities in the Management of Erectile Dysfunction: A Call to Action.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common, burdensome, and costly urologic condition strongly related to all aspects of general health, from physical to mental. ED has profound consequences as it may interfere physical well-being, quality of life (QoL), self-esteem, relationships, self-worth, and productivity. It is therefore important to ensure that all types of effective ED treatments are consistently accessible to patients. While federal and state mandates ensure access to treatment for women's breast health, female-factor infertility, and gender affirmation to ensure that these individuals do not experience a diminished QoL, there are no comparable mandates for men's sexual and reproductive health. The burden of ED necessitates a call to action to improve the accessibility of ED treatments. The call to action steps include: (a) coverage for pharmacological, surgical, and other ED treatments should be viewed in the same way as coverage for other health issues, whether male or female and regardless of the stages of treatment, physical dysfunction, or physical changes; (b) American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines for the management of ED should be followed, including implementation of templates in electronic medical records (EMRs) to support adherence to the guidelines; and (c) coverage criteria should explicitly state that the criteria are intended to support gender equity for sexual and reproductive health care and should not be used to prevent men from receiving medically necessary ED treatments. This call to action offers a pathway to support every man who seeks treatment for ED as a medically necessary intervention by removing systemic health-care barriers.