INTRODUCTION: Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) for male hypogonadism is rapidly gaining popularity and acceptance. Options include gels, injections, and implantable subcutaneous pellets. AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine rates of patient satisfaction and reasons for patient preferences in hypogonadal men on TRT. METHODS: An anonymous, prospective survey was distributed to men presenting for TRT at an academic urology clinic. The survey was organized into multiple domains including patient satisfaction and treatment motivation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient satisfaction responses obtained via anonymous survey. RESULTS: Average patient age was 49 ± 0.7 years (n = 382). Injectable testosterone was chosen by 53%, gel-based regimens by 31%, and pellets by 17%. Overall, 70% of patients were satisfied with their TRT and 14% reported dissatisfaction. Satisfaction rates were similar between gels (68%), injections (73%), and implantable pellets (70%). Doctor recommendation was the sole significant reason for patients preferring gel-based TRT (66% vs. 37% injection users vs. 31% pellet users). Injectable TRT was favored because of lower cost (35% vs. 21% gel users vs. 19% pellet users). Pellets were favored for ease of use (64% vs. 44% injection users vs. 43% gel users) and convenience (58% vs. 26% injection users vs. 19% gel users). Pellets had increased rates of satisfaction within the first 12 months. Improvements in concentration and mood occurred at higher percentages in satisfied patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are satisfied with TRT. Lower costs are important to patients on injections. Convenience and ease of use are central in choosing pellet therapy. Men on TRT should be questioned about mood and concentration because these factors exhibited the greatest improvements in satisfied patients.
INTRODUCTION:Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) for male hypogonadism is rapidly gaining popularity and acceptance. Options include gels, injections, and implantable subcutaneous pellets. AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine rates of patient satisfaction and reasons for patient preferences in hypogonadal men on TRT. METHODS: An anonymous, prospective survey was distributed to men presenting for TRT at an academic urology clinic. The survey was organized into multiple domains including patient satisfaction and treatment motivation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient satisfaction responses obtained via anonymous survey. RESULTS: Average patient age was 49 ± 0.7 years (n = 382). Injectable testosterone was chosen by 53%, gel-based regimens by 31%, and pellets by 17%. Overall, 70% of patients were satisfied with their TRT and 14% reported dissatisfaction. Satisfaction rates were similar between gels (68%), injections (73%), and implantable pellets (70%). Doctor recommendation was the sole significant reason for patients preferring gel-based TRT (66% vs. 37% injection users vs. 31% pellet users). Injectable TRT was favored because of lower cost (35% vs. 21% gel users vs. 19% pellet users). Pellets were favored for ease of use (64% vs. 44% injection users vs. 43% gel users) and convenience (58% vs. 26% injection users vs. 19% gel users). Pellets had increased rates of satisfaction within the first 12 months. Improvements in concentration and mood occurred at higher percentages in satisfied patients. CONCLUSIONS:Patients are satisfied with TRT. Lower costs are important to patients on injections. Convenience and ease of use are central in choosing pellet therapy. Men on TRT should be questioned about mood and concentration because these factors exhibited the greatest improvements in satisfied patients.
Authors: Christina Wang; Glenn Cunningham; Adrian Dobs; Ali Iranmanesh; Alvin M Matsumoto; Peter J Snyder; Thomas Weber; Nancy Berman; Laura Hull; Ronald S Swerdloff Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Andrew R McCullough; Mohit Khera; Irwin Goldstein; Wayne J G Hellstrom; Abraham Morgentaler; Laurence A Levine Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Farid Saad; Antonio Aversa; Andrea M Isidori; Livia Zafalon; Michael Zitzmann; Louis Gooren Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2011-07-13 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: Isabelle V Carter; Michael J Callegari; Tarun K Jella; Amr Mahran; Thomas B Cwalina; Wade Muncey; Aram Loeb; Nannan Thirumavalavan Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 2.896
Authors: Jordan C Best; Daniel Gonzalez; Thomas A Masterson; Ruben Blachman-Braun; Raghav Pai; Ranjith Ramasamy Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Alexander W Pastuszak; Lissette P Gomez; Jason M Scovell; Mohit Khera; Dolores J Lamb; Larry I Lipshultz Journal: Sex Med Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 2.491