Urology
Volume 58, Issue 2 , Pages 262-266, August 2001

Analysis of the consistency of intraurethral prostaglandin E1 (MUSE) during at-home use

  • John P Mulhall

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: John P. Mulhall, M.D., Department of Urology, Loyola University Medical Center, Stritch School of Medicine, 2160 South 1st Avenue, Maywood, IL 60304
  • ,
  • Andrew E Jahoda

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois, USA
  • ,
  • Absaar Ahmed

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois, USA
  • ,
  • Marilyn Parker

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois, USA

Received 31 January 2001; received in revised form 4 April 2001; accepted 4 April 2001.

Abstract 

Objectives. To determine the consistency of a successful response to intraurethral prostaglandin E1 (MUSE), an effective treatment for a proportion of patients with erectile dysfunction, during at-home use in men who had a successful response in the office, to define the factors that correlated with the consistency of the response, and to determine whether patients continued long-term use.

Methods. The study group consisted of men with documented erectile dysfunction who had a successful response (grade 3 or 4 erection) to MUSE during an initial in-office dose. All enrollees completed a home diary assessing the treatment success during at least five medication administrations. Factors such as patient age, vascular risk factor status, and degree of in-office response were prospectively evaluated as correlates of response consistency. Finally, patient follow-up was conducted in an attempt to define how many patients were continuing to use this medication as a long-term treatment modality.

Results. Two hundred twelve patients underwent screening and 72 (34%) patients had in-office success. The overall per patient at-home consistency rate was 51%. None of the aforementioned factors correlated with the consistency of the response. At a mean of 9 months after beginning treatment, only 31% of the in-office responders were continuing to use MUSE.

Conclusions. Although MUSE is an appropriate and safe treatment for many patients with erectile dysfunction, the lack of consistency is a significant consideration. Clinicians should pay close attention to patient education in an effort to promote realistic expectations for MUSE therapy. Furthermore, the lack of consistency may significantly lower the patient’s interest in continuing this treatment long term.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0090-4295(01)01164-5

Urology
Volume 58, Issue 2 , Pages 262-266, August 2001