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, United Kingdom. 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
BACKGROUND: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common condition that may affect men of all ages; in 1999, a Process of Care Model was developed to provide clinicians with recommendations regarding the evaluation and management of ED. AIM: To reflect the evolution of the study of ED since 1999, this update to the process of care model presents health care providers with a tool kit to facilitate patient interactions, comprehensive evaluation, and counseling for ED. METHODS: A cross-disciplinary panel of international experts met to propose updates to the 1999 process of care model from a global perspective. The updated model was designed to be evidence-based, data-driven, and accessible to a wide range of health care providers. OUTCOMES: This article summarizes the resulting discussion of the expert meeting and focuses on ED evaluation. The management of ED is discussed in an article by Muhall et al (J Sex Med 2018;15:1280-1292). RESULTS: A comprehensive approach to the evaluation of ED is warranted because ED may involve both psychological and organic components. The updated process of care model for evaluation was divided into core and optional components and now focuses on the combination of first-line pharmacotherapy and counseling in consideration of patient sexual dynamics. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patient evaluation for ED should encompass a variety of aspects, including medical history, sexual history, physical examination, psychological evaluation, laboratory testing, and possibly adjunctive testing. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This update draws on author expertise and experience to provide multi-faceted guidance for the evaluation of ED in a modern context. Although a limited number of contributors provided input on the update, these experts represent diverse fields that encounter patients with ED. Additionally, no meta-analyses were performed to further support the ED evaluation guidelines presented. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive evaluation of ED affords health care providers an opportunity to address medical, psychological/psycho-social, and sexual issues associated with ED, with the ultimate goal being effective management and possibly resolution of ED. While some or all techniques described in the updated model may be needed for each patient, evaluation should in all cases be thorough. Mulhall JP, Giraldi A, Hackett G, et al. The 2018 Revision to the Process of Care Model for Evaluation of Erectile Dysfunction. J Sex Med 2018;15:1280-1292.
BACKGROUND:Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common condition that may affect men of all ages; in 1999, a Process of Care Model was developed to provide clinicians with recommendations regarding the evaluation and management of ED. AIM: To reflect the evolution of the study of ED since 1999, this update to the process of care model presents health care providers with a tool kit to facilitate patient interactions, comprehensive evaluation, and counseling for ED. METHODS: A cross-disciplinary panel of international experts met to propose updates to the 1999 process of care model from a global perspective. The updated model was designed to be evidence-based, data-driven, and accessible to a wide range of health care providers. OUTCOMES: This article summarizes the resulting discussion of the expert meeting and focuses on ED evaluation. The management of ED is discussed in an article by Muhall et al (J Sex Med 2018;15:1280-1292). RESULTS: A comprehensive approach to the evaluation of ED is warranted because ED may involve both psychological and organic components. The updated process of care model for evaluation was divided into core and optional components and now focuses on the combination of first-line pharmacotherapy and counseling in consideration of patient sexual dynamics. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patient evaluation for ED should encompass a variety of aspects, including medical history, sexual history, physical examination, psychological evaluation, laboratory testing, and possibly adjunctive testing. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This update draws on author expertise and experience to provide multi-faceted guidance for the evaluation of ED in a modern context. Although a limited number of contributors provided input on the update, these experts represent diverse fields that encounter patients with ED. Additionally, no meta-analyses were performed to further support the ED evaluation guidelines presented. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive evaluation of ED affords health care providers an opportunity to address medical, psychological/psycho-social, and sexual issues associated with ED, with the ultimate goal being effective management and possibly resolution of ED. While some or all techniques described in the updated model may be needed for each patient, evaluation should in all cases be thorough. Mulhall JP, Giraldi A, Hackett G, et al. The 2018 Revision to the Process of Care Model for Evaluation of Erectile Dysfunction. J Sex Med 2018;15:1280-1292.
Authors: Marieke Dewitte; Carlo Bettocchi; Joanna Carvalho; Giovanni Corona; Ida Flink; Erika Limoncin; Patricia Pascoal; Yacov Reisman; Jacques Van Lankveld Journal: Sex Med Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 2.491
Authors: A Sansone; S Kliesch; M Dugas; R Sandhowe-Klaverkamp; A M Isidori; S Schlatt; M Zitzmann Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2021-04-03 Impact factor: 4.256