Treatment of premature ejaculation: New drugs and treatment strategies

This review discusses treatment options for men with premature ejaculation (PE), a common sexual dysfunction characterized by short ejaculatory latency, decreased sexual satisfaction, and distress. For a number of reasons, including embarrassment and the belief that PE is a normal part of aging, that it has no effective treatment, or that it will resolve itself, few men with PE seek treatment. Although several treatment options exist (eg, behavioral, cognitive, and sex therapy methods; desensitizing drugs; off-label use of antidepressants, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, or à-blockers), the majority of men with PE are not satisfied with their results. New pharmacologic drugs develped specifically for the treatment of PE are undergoing evaluation in clinical trials. For example, recent clinical research studies have revealed on-demand administration of one such drug, dapoxetine, which achieved significant improvements in ejaculatory latency, control over ejaculation, and satisfaction with sexual intercourse. In addition, partners of men who received dapoxetine likewise reported improved satisfaction with sexual intercourse. Future studies may reveal that integration of pharmacologic drugs with psychologic and/or behavioral therapy techniques may be the optimal approach to the management of PE. PE is a treatable condition, and new drugs in development may provide benefits over those available.     

Prostatitis and male factor infertility: A review of the literature

Prostatitis and male infertility are frequent disorders, and the role of prostatitis in male infertility has been under discussion for more than 30 years. Many researchers have shown relevant links between the two. Although a causal relationship has not been definitely demonstrated, increasing evidence shows that chronic prostatitis has a relevant negative impact on male fertility potential, at least in certain subgroups. In the following review, we focus on the present state of knowledge on the role of chronic prostatitis as an etiologic factor in male infertility.     

The economics of medical therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Medical therapy is currently the most popular treatment choice for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Because medical therapy of BPH-related LUTS is considered a life-long strategy, short- and long-term cost considerations should play a major role in therapeutic decision-making. The effectiveness in terms of long and short amelioration of symptoms, flow rate, and quality of life are well documented for 5α-blockers and 5α-reductase inhibitors as well as for the gold standard treatment for BPH, transurethral resection of the prostate and minimally invasive therapies. Short-and long-term safety concerns also are well documented for these various treatment options. On the contrary, short- and long-term costs have been less well studied and comparisons depend on the model or analyses undertaken in the few studies available. However, the economic studies based on prospective clinical trial data that have become available throughout the past several decades allow us to rationalize our use of α-blockers, 5α -reductase inhibitors, and combination therapy, taking into consideration age, severity of symptoms, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen, and the differential response of the various medications (and combination) in selected patients. Based on current studies, 5α -blockers generally provide cost-effective therapy for most patients, whereas 5α-reductase therapy and combination therapy provide cost-effective treatment for patients with larger prostate glands or higher baseline prostate-specific antigen levels.     

Improvement of oral colonic lavage with supplemental simethicone

We have noted that colons of patients prepared for colonoscopy with Golytely, a nonabsorbable electrolyte lavage solution, frequently contain foam which may obscure small mucosal lesions. Therefore, a randomized, blinded controlled trial was performed to determine the prevalence of Golytely-induced foam and the effect of supplemental simethicone in decreasing the prevalence of foam. Foam was present in 32% of colons prepared with Golytely alone but in none of the colons prepared with Golytely supplemented with simethicone. In addition, only 5% of colons prepared with supplemental simethicone had residual stool noted at the time of colonoscopy, a significant improvement over the 39% prevalence of residual stool in colons prepared with Golytely alone. Addition of simethicone to Golytely lavage decreases the prevalence of colonic foam and residual stool.