OBJECTIVES: To determine the consistency of a successful response to intraurethral prostaglandin E(1) (MUSE), an effective treatment for a proportion of patients with erectile dysfunction, during at-home use in men who had a successful response in the office, to define the factors that correlated with the consistency of the response, and to determine whether patients continued long-term use. METHODS: The study group consisted of men with documented erectile dysfunction who had a successful response (grade 3 or 4 erection) to MUSE during an initial in-office dose. All enrollees completed a home diary assessing the treatment success during at least five medication administrations. Factors such as patient age, vascular risk factor status, and degree of in-office response were prospectively evaluated as correlates of response consistency. Finally, patient follow-up was conducted in an attempt to define how many patients were continuing to use this medication as a long-term treatment modality. RESULTS: Two hundred twelve patients underwent screening and 72 (34%) patients had in-office success. The overall per patient at-home consistency rate was 51%. None of the aforementioned factors correlated with the consistency of the response. At a mean of 9 months after beginning treatment, only 31% of the in-office responders were continuing to use MUSE. CONCLUSIONS: Although MUSE is an appropriate and safe treatment for many patients with erectile dysfunction, the lack of consistency is a significant consideration. Clinicians should pay close attention to patient education in an effort to promote realistic expectations for MUSE therapy. Furthermore, the lack of consistency may significantly lower the patient's interest in continuing this treatment long term.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the consistency of a successful response to intraurethral prostaglandin E(1) (MUSE), an effective treatment for a proportion of patients with erectile dysfunction, during at-home use in men who had a successful response in the office, to define the factors that correlated with the consistency of the response, and to determine whether patients continued long-term use. METHODS: The study group consisted of men with documented erectile dysfunction who had a successful response (grade 3 or 4 erection) to MUSE during an initial in-office dose. All enrollees completed a home diary assessing the treatment success during at least five medication administrations. Factors such as patient age, vascular risk factor status, and degree of in-office response were prospectively evaluated as correlates of response consistency. Finally, patient follow-up was conducted in an attempt to define how many patients were continuing to use this medication as a long-term treatment modality. RESULTS: Two hundred twelve patients underwent screening and 72 (34%) patients had in-office success. The overall per patient at-home consistency rate was 51%. None of the aforementioned factors correlated with the consistency of the response. At a mean of 9 months after beginning treatment, only 31% of the in-office responders were continuing to use MUSE. CONCLUSIONS: Although MUSE is an appropriate and safe treatment for many patients with erectile dysfunction, the lack of consistency is a significant consideration. Clinicians should pay close attention to patient education in an effort to promote realistic expectations for MUSE therapy. Furthermore, the lack of consistency may significantly lower the patient's interest in continuing this treatment long term.