(028) Intracavernosal Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

W Atmoko,M Savira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae002.028

2024-03-06

The Journal of Sexual Medicine

Abstract:Introduction Erectile dysfunction (ED) affects 3 to 76.5% of men globally. Appropriate treatments for ED patients are vital to ensure their quality of life. However, the present conservative ED treatments cannot reverse the underlying pathology and often lead to discontinuation due to the lack of efficacy. Regenerative therapies, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), have been gaining increasing interest for the last few years. Preclinical studies suggest that growth factors in PRP may be beneficial in ED. With the increasing evidence of PRP, a meta-analysis has yet to be conducted to determine its efficacy and safety compared to a placebo. Objective To systematically evaluate PRP's efficacy and safety for treating ED based on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) results. Methods A comprehensive search on PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases was conducted on June 2023 to find relevant articles following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. RCTs in English evaluating PRP's efficacy and safety in treating ED were included. The primary outcomes were the International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) score at 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-treatment. The secondary analysis includes the proportion of patients who met the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of IIEF-EF score, IIEF score for sexual satisfaction and overall satisfaction, peak systolic velocity (PSV) in the cavernousal artery, and the complication rate after treatment. Quality of included studies was assessed using JADAD Score and Cochrane RoB2 tools. Meta-analysis with a random or fixed effects model based on the heterogeneity was performed using Revman 5.4. Results From 183 articles in initial research, three RCTs with low risk of bias were reviewed. We included 103 patients in the PRP group and 106 in the placebo group. The baseline of the evaluated score from both groups was comparable despite variable PRP protocol being used. The pooled analysis showed that PRP is associated with higher IIEF-EF scores at 1, 3, and 6 months follow up compared to placebo with a mean difference (MD) of 2.85 (95% CI, 1.68 – 4.03, p: <0.00001), 2.81 (95% CI, 1.57 – 4.05, p: <0.00001), 3.11 (95% CI, 1.96 – 4.27, p: <0.00001). Similarly, the proportion of patients who met MCID and PSV at follow-up also favoured the PRP group. On contrary, the IIEF score for sexual satisfaction and overall satisfaction domain, as well as VAS score post-injection were comparable between groups. No significant adverse event was reported in any study during follow-up. Conclusions The present meta-analysis suggests that PRP is effective and tolerable as a restorative therapy for managing ED patients compared to a placebo. Nevertheless, additional RCTs with more robust data from larger sample sizes and longer-term follow-ups are required to corroborate the findings. Disclosure No.

urology & nephrology