John P Mulhall1, Annamaria Giraldi2, Geoff Hackett3, Wayne J G Hellstrom4, Emmanuele A Jannini5, Eusebio Rubio-Aurioles6, Landon Trost7, Tarek A Hassan8. 1. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: mulhalj1@mskcc.org. 2. Sexological Clinic, Psychiatric Center Copenhagen, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Aston University Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 4. Tulane University Medical Center, New Orleans, LA, USA. 5. Endocrinology and Medical Sexology (ENDOSEX), Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy. 6. Asociación Mexicana para la Salud Sexual, A.C. (AMSSAC), La Joya, Mexico City, Mexico. 7. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 8. Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common condition the treatment of which over the years has expanded from specialty care settings to various other clinical settings. A Process of Care Model was developed in 1999 to provide primary care physicians with guidance in the diagnosis and management of ED. AIM: This update to the Process of Care Model aims to reflect current ED management practices, because the study of ED has changed since 1999. METHODS: Updates to the Process of Care Model were developed during a meeting of international experts from diverse disciplines. The updated model is data-driven, evidence-based, and relevant to a wide range of healthcare providers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This article summarizes the results of the expert meeting and focuses on ED management. The evaluation of ED is discussed in a separate article. RESULTS: The updated model presents modification of risk factors and correction of comorbidities frequently associated with ED as critical parts of patient management. Patients should be encouraged to make positive lifestyle changes such as improving diet and increasing physical exercise. Lifestyle changes may be accompanied by the first-line medical therapies of sexual counseling and therapy, which takes into consideration patient sexual dynamics and pharmacotherapy with phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The updated model provides guidance regarding risk factors associated with ED, their modification, sexual counseling, and PDE5I selection, dosing, and patient education. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This update leverages the extensive clinical expertise and experience of the authors to provide updated, comprehensive guidance for ED management. The model reflects the views and experiences of a limited number of contributors; however, these authors draw upon a diverse array of clinical specialties and are regarded as experts in their fields. Additionally, no meta-analyses were performed to further support the ED evaluation guidelines presented. CONCLUSION: Effective management of ED may be achieved through a combination of patient risk factor modification and first-line therapy, taking into consideration any patient comorbidities known to be associated with ED. Treatment goals should be individualized to restore sexual satisfaction to the patient and/or couple and improve quality of life based on the patient's expressed needs and desires. Mulhall JP, Giraldi A, Hackett G, et al. The 2018 Revision to the Process of Care Model for Management of Erectile Dysfunction. J Sex Med 2018;15:1434-1445.
INTRODUCTION:Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common condition the treatment of which over the years has expanded from specialty care settings to various other clinical settings. A Process of Care Model was developed in 1999 to provide primary care physicians with guidance in the diagnosis and management of ED. AIM: This update to the Process of Care Model aims to reflect current ED management practices, because the study of ED has changed since 1999. METHODS: Updates to the Process of Care Model were developed during a meeting of international experts from diverse disciplines. The updated model is data-driven, evidence-based, and relevant to a wide range of healthcare providers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This article summarizes the results of the expert meeting and focuses on ED management. The evaluation of ED is discussed in a separate article. RESULTS: The updated model presents modification of risk factors and correction of comorbidities frequently associated with ED as critical parts of patient management. Patients should be encouraged to make positive lifestyle changes such as improving diet and increasing physical exercise. Lifestyle changes may be accompanied by the first-line medical therapies of sexual counseling and therapy, which takes into consideration patient sexual dynamics and pharmacotherapy with phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The updated model provides guidance regarding risk factors associated with ED, their modification, sexual counseling, and PDE5I selection, dosing, and patient education. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This update leverages the extensive clinical expertise and experience of the authors to provide updated, comprehensive guidance for ED management. The model reflects the views and experiences of a limited number of contributors; however, these authors draw upon a diverse array of clinical specialties and are regarded as experts in their fields. Additionally, no meta-analyses were performed to further support the ED evaluation guidelines presented. CONCLUSION: Effective management of ED may be achieved through a combination of patient risk factor modification and first-line therapy, taking into consideration any patient comorbidities known to be associated with ED. Treatment goals should be individualized to restore sexual satisfaction to the patient and/or couple and improve quality of life based on the patient's expressed needs and desires. Mulhall JP, Giraldi A, Hackett G, et al. The 2018 Revision to the Process of Care Model for Management of Erectile Dysfunction. J Sex Med 2018;15:1434-1445.
Authors: Camilla R Madeira; Fernanda S Tonin; Mariana M Fachi; Helena H Borba; Vinicius L Ferreira; Leticia P Leonart; Aline F Bonetti; Rogerio P Moritz; Angela C L B Trindade; Alan G Gonçalves; Fernando Fernandez-Llimos; Roberto Pontarolo Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-05-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Giuseppe Defeudis; Rossella Mazzilli; Marta Tenuta; Giovanni Rossini; Virginia Zamponi; Soraya Olana; Antongiulio Faggiano; Paolo Pozzilli; Andrea M Isidori; Daniele Gianfrilli Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 8.128
Authors: Adithya Balasubramanian; Nannan Thirumavalavan; Ashwin Srivatsav; Justin Yu; James M Hotaling; Larry I Lipshultz; Alexander W Pastuszak Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 3.937
Authors: A Sansone; D Mollaioli; G Ciocca; E Limoncin; E Colonnello; W Vena; E A Jannini Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Giovanni Burgio; Bruno Giammusso; Aldo E Calogero; Daniele Mollaioli; Rosita A Condorelli; Emmanuele A Jannini; Sandro La Vignera Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 4.241