Recent Publications by CFE Educators

INTRODUCTION

Many men experience distressing issues regarding the timing of orgasm and ejaculation, such as premature ejaculation (PE) and delayed ejaculation (DE). Despite being highly prevalent, both PE and DE are poorly understood and present a management challenge for sexual medicine specialists.

AIM

To summarize existing data on the medical management of PE and DE.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review pertaining to the management of PE and DE was conducted using PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov for data published up until May 2019. Our focus was on double-blind, placebo-controlled trials and meta-analyses of such studies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Peer-reviewed studies on treatment options for PE and DE were critically analyzed for results and methodological rigor.

RESULTS

The peer-reviewed data on PE management continue to evolve. Psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and procedural interventions have all been associated with some degree of efficacy. A strong evidence base supports the off-label use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and local anesthetics in PE given consistent increases in ejaculation latency time. Education and mental health assessments remain important components of PE management despite a dearth of peer-reviewed data on these interventions. Numerous treatment strategies have been evaluated for DE; limited data support psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and/or penile vibratory stimulation as management options.

CONCLUSION

A number of management options for PE or DE exist but none has been formally approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. New and novel treatments would be of great value in managing issues regarding the timing of ejaculation/orgasm. Martin-Tuite P, Shindel AW. Management Options for Premature Ejaculation and Delayed Ejaculation in Men. Sex Med Rev 2020; 8:473-485.

The objective of this study was to determine if real-world ceftaroline treatment in adults hospitalized for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) is associated with decreased infection-related length of stay (LOS) compared to that with vancomycin. This was a retrospective, multicenter, cohort study from 2012 to 2017. Cox proportional hazard regression, propensity score matching, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to determine the independent effect of treatment group on LOS The patients were adults hospitalized with ABSSSI and treated with ceftaroline or vancomycin for ≥72 h within 120 h of diagnosis at four academic medical centers and two community hospitals in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, and West Virginia. A total of 724 patients were included (325 ceftaroline treated and 399 vancomycin treated). In general, ceftaroline-treated patients had characteristics consistent with a higher risk of poor outcomes. The unadjusted median LOS values were 5 (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7) days and 6 (IQR, 4 to 8) days in the vancomycin and ceftaroline groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.866; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.747 to 1.002). The Cox proportional hazard model (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.891; 95% CI, 0.748 to 1.060), propensity score-matched (aHR, 0.955; 95% CI, 0.786 to 1.159), and IPTW (aHR, 0.918; 95% CI, 0.793 to 1.063) analyses demonstrated no significant difference in LOS between groups. Patients treated with ceftaroline were significantly more likely to meet criteria for discharge readiness at day 3 in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Although discharge readiness at day 3 was higher in ceftaroline-treated patients, LOS values were similar between treatment groups. Clinical and nonclinical factors were associated with LOS.

BACKGROUND

Intermediate care units (IMCUs) are heterogeneous in design and operation, which makes comparative effectiveness studies challenging. A generalizable outcome prediction model could improve such comparisons. However, little is known about the performance of critical care outcome prediction models in the intermediate care setting. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation version II (APACHE II), Simplified Acute Physiology Score version II (SAPS II) and version 3 (SAPS 3), and Mortality Probability Model version III (MPMIII) in patients admitted to a well-characterized IMCU.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the IMCU of an academic medical center (July to December 2012), the discrimination and calibration of each outcome prediction model were evaluated using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, respectively. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were also calculated.

RESULTS

The cohort included data from 628 unique IMCU admissions with an inpatient mortality rate of 8.3%. All models exhibited good discrimination, but only the SAPS II and MPMIII were well calibrated. While the APACHE II and SAPS 3 both markedly overestimated mortality, the SMR for the SAPS II and MPMIII were 0.91 and 0.91, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The SAPS II and MPMIII exhibited good discrimination and calibration, with slight overestimation of mortality. Each model should be further evaluated in multicenter studies of patients in the intermediate care setting.