Mp28-11 Evaluating Practice Patterns of Clostridium Collagenase Histolyticum Providers

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Peyronie's Disease (MP28)1 May 2024MP28-11 EVALUATING PRACTICE PATTERNS OF CLOSTRIDIUM COLLAGENASE HISTOLYTICUM PROVIDERS Niki Parikh, Ranveer Vasdev, and Matthew Ziegelmann Niki ParikhNiki Parikh , Ranveer VasdevRanveer Vasdev , and Matthew ZiegelmannMatthew Ziegelmann View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008872.42208.7a.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Little is known regarding the practice patterns of Clostridium Collagenase Histolyticum (CCH) providers. There is currently a lack of standardization regarding administration and patient work-up which could lead to variable patient outcomes. Here, we sought to evaluate patient evaluation and practice patterns for CCH administration among providers who are approved to administer CCH to treat Peyronie's Disease. METHODS: We developed a 24-question survey with topics including provider type, years in practice, number of patients seen for CCH injections, therapies offered for Peyronie's disease, work-up of patients, and post-injection counseling were included. The survey was distributed via mail to providers included on the patient-facing Endo International Xiaflex Find a Provider web-based tool. RESULTS: We received 60 provider responses including 43% fellowship-trained urologists, 42% non-fellowship trained urologists, and 15% advanced practice providers. 60% of providers reported seeing less than 10 patients with Peyronie's disease per month on average.Consistent with American Urological Association guideline recommendations, >63% of providers performed an in-office assessment of the erect penis while only 35% obtained a penile ultrasound prior to starting CCH therapy. 32% of providers always performed and 36% never performed an artificial erection test prior to administering CCH. The location of the plaque that was targeted with CCH injection was most identified by palpating the plaque (90%) or patient-provided direction (43%). Additional therapies most recommended in between injection cycles includes patient-performed modeling of the flaccid/erect penis (90%) and penile traction therapy (43%). Sixty-nine percent of providers waited 2-3 days between each injection within a cycle with 88% waiting 6 weeks between cycles. 72% of providers recommended avoiding sexual intercourse for 3-4 weeks between injection cycles. 40% of providers had encountered a corporal rupture, but only 20% of providers feel that immediate surgical exploration is required in this setting. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variability in provider practice patterns surrounding CCH injections, timing of cycles, determination of curvature, and patient counseling. Interestingly, most providers saw on average less than 10 patients with Peyronie's disease per month. This calls to attention the need for evaluation of techniques, patient outcomes, and standardization of care. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e476 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Niki Parikh More articles by this author Ranveer Vasdev More articles by this author Matthew Ziegelmann More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...