An Evaluation of Sexual Function in the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Men Treated with the Temporarily Implanted Nitinol Device.

Purpose: To document the effect of the temporarily implanted nitinol device (iTind; Medi-Tate Ltd, Israel) on sexual function from a multicenter, randomized, single-blinded, sham-controlled trial. Materials and Methods: Men were randomized 2:1 between iTind and sham procedure arms. The iTind was placed for 5-7 days and an 18F Foley catheter was inserted and removed for the iTind and sham group, respectively. Patients were assessed at baseline, 3, and 12 months postoperatively using the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Unblinding occurred at 3 months. Results: We studied 185 men with a mean age of 61.1 ± 6.5 years. There was no difference in SHIM or total IIEF between iTind and sham at 3 months or in the iTind arm at 12 months compared with baseline. Men in the iTind arm without erectile dysfunction at baseline showed an improvement in total IIEF score of +6.07 ± 21.17 points (p = 0.034) at 12 months, in addition to an improvement in ejaculatory function. SHIM scores remained unchanged in all groups, regardless of age, prostate volume, or baseline erectile function. Conclusion: No changes were observed in sexual and ejaculatory function of patients with iTind regardless of a man's age, prostate volume, and baseline sexual function. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02506465.

The iTind Temporarily Implanted Nitinol Device for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To report the results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial with a temporarily implanted nitinol device (iTind; Medi-Tate Ltd, Hadera, Israel) compared to sham for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men 50 years or older were randomized 2:1 between iTind and sham procedure arms. A self-expanding, temporary nitinol device was placed for 5-7 days and an 18F Foley catheter was inserted and removed for the iTind and sham group, respectively. Patients were assessed at baseline, 1.5, 3, and 12 months postoperatively using the IPSS, peak urinary flow rate, residual urine, quality of life, and the International Index of Erectile Function. Unblinding occurred at 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 175 men (mean age 61.1 ± 6.5) participated (118 iTind vs 57 sham). A total of 78.6% of patients in the iTind arm showed a reduction of ≥3 points in IPSS, vs 60% of patients in the control arm at 3 months. At 12 months, the iTind group reported a 9.25 decrease in IPSS (P< .0001), a 3.52ml/s increase in peak urinary flow rate (P < .0001) and a 1.9-point reduction in quality of life (P < .0001). Adverse events were typically mild and transient, most Clavien-Dindo grade I or II, in 38.1% of patients in the iTind arm and 17.5% in the control arm. No de novo ejaculatory or erectile dysfunction occurred. CONCLUSION: Treatment with the second-generation iTind provided rapid and sustained improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms for the study period while preserving sexual function.

Fexapotide triflutate: results of long-term safety and efficacy trials of a novel injectable therapy for symptomatic prostate enlargement.

PURPOSE: These studies were undertaken to determine if fexapotide triflutate 2.5 mg transrectal injectable (FT) has significant long-term (LT) safety and efficacy for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: Two placebo controlled double-blind randomized parallel group trials with 995 BPH patients at 72 sites treated 3:2 FT:placebo, with open-label FT crossover (CO) re-injection in 2 trials n = 344 and long-term follow-up (LF) 2-6.75 years (mean 3.58 years, median 3.67 years; FT re-injection CO mean 4.27 years, median 4.42 years) were evaluated. 12 months post-treatment patients elected no further treatment, approved oral medications, FT, or interventional treatment. Primary endpoint variable was change in Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months and at LF. CO primary co-endpoints were 3-year incidence of (1) surgery for BPH in FT treated CO patients versus patients crossed over to oral BPH medications and (2) surgery or acute urinary retention in FT-treated CO placebo patients versus placebo patients crossed over to oral BPH medications. 28 CO secondary endpoints assessed surgical and symptomatic outcomes in FT reinjected patients versus conventional BPH medication CO and control subgroups at 2 and 3 years. RESULTS: FT injection had no significant safety differences from placebo. LF IPSS change from baseline was higher in FT treated patients compared to placebo (median FT group improvement - 5.2 versus placebo - 3.0, p < 0.0001). LF incidence of AUR (1.08% p = 0.0058) and prostate cancer (PCa) (1.1% p = 0.0116) were both reduced in FT treated patients. LF incidence of intervention for BPH was reduced in the FT group versus oral BPH medications (8.08% versus 27.85% at 3 years, p < 0.0001). LF incidence of intervention or AUR in placebo CO group with FT versus placebo CO group with oral medications was reduced (6.07% versus 33.3% at 3 years, p < 0.0001). 28/28 secondary efficacy endpoints were reached in LF CO re-injection studies. CONCLUSIONS: FT 2.5 mg is a safe and effective transrectal injectable for LT treatment of BPH. FT treated patients also had reduced need for BPH intervention, and reduced incidence of PCa and AUR.

Development of a Nationally Representative Coordinated Registry Network for Prostate Ablation Technologies.

PURPOSE: The accumulation of data through a prospective, multicenter coordinated registry network is a practical way to gather real world evidence on the performance of novel prostate ablation technologies. Urological oncologists, targeted biopsy experts, industry representatives and representatives of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) convened to discuss the role, feasibility and important data elements of a coordinated registry network to assess new and existing prostate ablation technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multiround Delphi consensus approach was performed which included the opinion of 15 expert urologists, representatives of the FDA and leadership from high intensity focused ultrasound device manufacturers. Stakeholders provided input in 3 consecutive rounds with conference calls following each round to obtain consensus on remaining items. Participants agreed that these elements initially developed for high intensity focused ultrasound are compatible with other prostate ablation technologies. Coordinated registry network elements were reviewed and supplemented with data elements from the FDA common study metrics. RESULTS: The working group reached consensus on capturing specific patient demographics, treatment details, oncologic outcomes, functional outcomes and complications. Validated health related quality of life questionnaires were selected to capture patient reported outcomes, including the IIEF-5 (International Index of Erectile Function-5), the I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), the EPIC-26 (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26) and the MSHQ-EjD (Male Sexual Health Questionnaire for Ejaculatory Dysfunction). Group consensus was to obtain followup multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and prostate biopsy approximately 12 months after ablation with additional imaging or biopsy performed as clinically indicated. CONCLUSIONS: A national prostate ablation coordinated registry network brings forth vital practice pattern and outcomes data for this emerging treatment paradigm in the United States. Our multiple stakeholder consensus identifies critical elements to evaluate new and existing energy modalities and devices.

The incidence of fluoroquinolone resistant infections after prostate biopsy--are fluoroquinolones still effective prophylaxis?

PURPOSE: Fluoroquinolones have been shown to decrease infective complications after prostate biopsy. However, fluoroquinolone resistance is emerging. We quantified contemporary rates of infective complications and the incidence of fluoroquinolone resistant infections after prostate biopsy under fluoroquinolone prophylaxis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the records of 1,273 patients who underwent prostate biopsy at New York Harbor Veterans Affairs Hospital from January 2004 to December 2006. Patients received levofloxacin or gatifloxacin. Using the Veterans Affairs computerized patient record system we reviewed all patient visits within 1 month after prostate biopsy. Visits were queried for infective symptoms. Positive cultures were evaluated for resistance patterns. The annual and overall incidence of infective complications and fluoroquinolone resistant infections was calculated. RESULTS: Of 1,273 patients 31 (2.4%) presented with infective symptoms after biopsy. The overall incidence of fluoroquinolone resistant infections was 1.2% (15 cases). When stratified by year, there were statistically significant increases in the incidence of infective complications and fluoroquinolone resistance from 2004 to 2006. Of the positive cultures those from 89% of patients yielded Escherichia coli and 90% were fluoroquinolone resistant. Fluoroquinolone resistant E. coli were also resistant to gentamicin in 22% of cases, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole in 44%, piperacillin in 72% and ampicillin in 94%. However, 100% sensitivity was demonstrated for amikacin, ceftazidime and ceftriaxone. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroquinolones are still effective as antibiotic prophylaxis for prostate biopsies but there is an increase in infective complications and fluoroquinolone resistance. When patients present with post-prostate biopsy infective symptoms, almost 50% are associated with fluoroquinolone resistant pathogens. Empirical treatment with ceftriaxone, ceftazidime or amikacin should be initiated until culture specific therapy can be implemented.

Multicenter initial U.S. experience with CoreTherm-monitored feedback transurethral microwave thermotherapy for individualized treatment of patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: To report the initial experience with CoreTherm-monitored transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) for individualized treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The CoreTherm procedure uses a urethral microwave catheter through which a tiny temperature sensor is placed in the adenoma to allow real-time monitoring of intraprostatic temperature during TUMT. The cell kill volume can be calculated and the treatment time adjusted to both the patient's actual prostate volume and the prostatic blood flow. A series of 102 patients was treated. RESULTS: All patients were able to tolerate the treatment in an outpatient clinic setting, with temperatures >49 degrees C being reached in all cases. The total treatment times averaged 25 minutes, and the peak intraprostatic temperature averaged 61 degrees C. The median catheter time was 8.5 days. Patients were followed an average of 5.6 months. The American Urological Association Scores fell to 11 from 18 prior to CoreTherm TUMT. There were minimal treatment-related complications. CONCLUSION: CoreTherm-monitored TUMT is safe and tolerable, with shorter treatments than are required by older forms of TUMT.