Al Hashimi Manaf, Pinggera Germar-M, Mostafa Taymour, Shah Rupin, Sahin Bahadir, Chung Eric, Rambhatla Amarnath, Cayan Selahittin, Alipour Hiva, Ragab Maged, Raheem Omer, Arafa Mohamed, Alnajjar Hussain, Kadioglu Ateş, Hegde Abheesh Varma, Harraz Ahmed, Agarwa Ashok
Department of Urology, Burjeel Hospital, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Department of Clinical Urology, College of Medicine and Health Science, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
World J Mens Health. 2024 Nov 27. doi: 10.5534/wjmh.240214.
There is increased interest in regenerative therapies (RTs) to treat erectile dysfunction (ED). However, the need for society's guidelines has led to varied practices. This study aims to investigate current global practices, address the heterogeneity in treatment protocols and evaluations, and establish expert recommendations in clinical practice.
Senior experts from the Global Andrology Forum (GAF) created a 32-question survey to evaluate the clinical aspects of various RT modalities and compare them with each other and with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5is). The survey was distributed worldwide to ED specialists through online Google Forms, the GAF website, international professional societies, and direct emails. The responses were analyzed and are presented as percentage frequencies. Additionally, an expert consensus on recommendations for RT use was reached at via a modified Delphi method.
Out of 163 respondents from 39 countries, the majority (80.1%) were using low-intensity shockwave therapy (LISWT), followed by platelet-rich plasma (PRP) 61.3% and stem cell therapy (SCT) 17.8%. Efficacy comparisons revealed no perceived significant differences among RT modalities (p=0.124). Compared to PDE5is, the efficacy of LISWT and PRP was considered lower by the respondents, while SCT was rated better by almost half of those who used SCT. The duration of improvement varied (p=0.279), with most improvements lasting 1 to 6 months. The treatment protocols used for LISWT were mainly consistent but varied widely for PRP and SCT. Adverse effects were minimal, particularly for LISWT (p<0.001). The costs varied significantly (p<0.001), with SCT being the most expensive. The evidence for efficacy was rated as primarily moderate to strong for LISWT but poor for PRP and SCT (p=0.027).
Most respondents utilized LISWT, followed by PRP, with SCT being the least commonly utilized. The high break heterogeneity in treatment protocols and evaluation of RT underscores the need for further studies and guidelines to establish best practices.
治疗勃起功能障碍(ED)的再生疗法(RTs)越来越受到关注。然而,社会对指南的需求导致了各种不同的做法。本研究旨在调查当前全球的实践情况,解决治疗方案和评估中的异质性问题,并在临床实践中建立专家建议。
全球男科学论坛(GAF)的资深专家创建了一份包含32个问题的调查问卷,以评估各种RT模式的临床方面,并将它们相互比较,同时与5型磷酸二酯酶抑制剂(PDE5is)进行比较。该调查问卷通过在线谷歌表单、GAF网站、国际专业协会以及直接电子邮件的方式分发给全球的ED专家。对回复进行了分析,并以百分比频率呈现。此外,通过改良的德尔菲法就RT使用的建议达成了专家共识。
在来自39个国家的163名受访者中,大多数(80.1%)使用低强度冲击波疗法(LISWT),其次是富血小板血浆(PRP),占61.3%,干细胞疗法(SCT)占17.8%。疗效比较显示,RT模式之间没有明显的显著差异(p=0.124)。与PDE5is相比,受访者认为LISWT和PRP的疗效较低,而几乎一半使用SCT的受访者认为SCT的疗效更好。改善的持续时间各不相同(p=0.279),大多数改善持续1至6个月。LISWT使用的治疗方案基本一致,但PRP和SCT的方案差异很大。不良反应最小,尤其是LISWT(p<0.001)。成本差异显著(p<0.001),SCT是最昂贵的。LISWT疗效的证据主要被评为中等至强,但PRP和SCT的证据较差(p=0.027)。
大多数受访者使用LISWT,其次是PRP,SCT使用最少。RT治疗方案和评估中存在高度的异质性,这凸显了进一步研究和制定指南以确立最佳实践的必要性。