Skip to main content

We use cookies so that we can offer you the best possible website experience. This includes cookies, which are necessary for the operation of the website and to manage our corporate commercial objectives, as well as other cookies which are used solely for anonymous statistical purposes and for more comfortable website settings. You are free to decide which categories you would like to permit. Depending on the settings you choose, the full functionality of the website may no longer be available.

Cookie Policy
×

Abstract

Background

Peyronie’s disease (PD) is a progressive fibrotic disorder of the penis that can induce pain and erectile dysfunction and has various treatment modalities, including surgical, pharmaceutical, and Clostridium histolyticum injection therapies.

Methods

The authors used electronic medical records from Kaiser Permanente Southern California, an integrated health care system that consists of 15 medical centers, and identified patients diagnosed with stable PD without concomitant erectile dysfunction from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2020. Baseline characteristics between surgical and injection groups were compared using Chi-squared and Kruskal–Wallis tests. Multivariable logistic regression with adjustment of confounders was implemented to identify which variables may influence whether patients received injection or surgical therapy.

Results

A total of 11,706 patients with PD were identified. The rate of new PD diagnosis per 100,000 patients increased by 0.37 every year, P < .05. The incident rate (per 1000 eligible patients) of surgical management declined on average by 0.40 each year (P < .001), although there was an increase rate of 1.19 for injection therapy (P < .001). On multivariable modeling, patients 45–54 years of age were more likely to receive injection therapy as the primary treatment for PD (adjusted odds ratio = 2.77; P = .002; confidence interval = 1.34–5.73).

Conclusion

This study illustrates that pentoxifylline is now more frequently used than colchicine and vitamin E as oral treatments for PD, while collagenase C. histolyticum injection therapy is now more prevalently employed than surgical intervention as the therapeutic approach for PD.

Introduction

Peyronie’s disease (PD) is a progressive fibrotic disorder of the penis characterized by abnormal deposition of fibrotic tissue within the corpora cavernosa.1 Estimates indicate the prevalence of PD is 3% to 9%, with most men presenting in their 50s.2 Although the specific role of fibrotic plaques in this clinical presentation is not yet fully understood, the most accepted theory is that the development of these fibrotic plaques is initiated by trauma.3 Men who engage in vigorous sexual and nonsexual activities, including high-impact sports, are more likely to develop PD due to microtraumas to penile tissue.1 As fibrous scar tissue replaces typical fibers within the tunica albuginea, penile deviation results due to inelastic tissue restricting expansion. The penile deviation can vary among patients but typically presents with pain and is associated with erectile dysfunction, which is debilitating for men and their partners and can cause substantial psychological distress.2,4–6
PD without concomitant erectile dysfunction is treated with penile plication or excision with grafting; however, treatment for PD with concomitant erectile dysfunction can vary depending on the degree of penile deformity and the degree of erectile functional capacity.6,7 Surgical intervention carries the chance of neurovascular injury, penile shortening, infection, reduction of penile sensitivity, and erectile dysfunction. In 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CCH) injection therapy to treat PD.7 CCH injections are a minimally invasive approach to improve penile deformities in patients living with PD without resorting to surgery, and CCH injections have become a staple in treating PD.8 The collagenases in CCH can degrade the predominant forms of collagen present in PD plaques.2,9,10 From the introduction of CCH into the US Market, its effect on the treatment patterns of PD across time is unknown.
To the authors’ knowledge, the effects of the advent of CCH on the rates of prescribing oral treatments, including vitamin E, colchicine, and pentoxifylline, as well as surgical intervention for PD without concomitant erectile dysfunction, have not been investigated at a population level. The present study provides a large population-level analysis of the trends of the effect of CCH on the treatments for PD without concomitant erectile dysfunction in a large health care system.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study was approved by the institutional review board at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. A waiver of informed consent was obtained due to the retrospective, data-only nature of the study. This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines.

Study Design and Data Source

This retrospective observational cohort study was performed using data from the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care system, an integrated network serving ∼4.7 million patients across 15 medical centers. The Kaiser Permanente Southern California system delivers health care services to a racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse population that reflects the broader demographic composition of the population in Southern California.11 Information about the medical care Kaiser Permanente Southern California patients receive is captured through an electronic medical record (EMR). The Kaiser Permanente Southern California EMR was the primary data source for patient identification, characterization, and evaluation. The EMR-based datasets’ information includes sociodemographic and pharmacy and health care use data.12,13

Setting and Participants

From January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2020, the authors identified patients diagnosed with PD and monitored the trends of PD management longitudinally using the EMR. To be included in the study, patients must have been ≥ 18 years of age, diagnosed with PD, and started on either injection therapy (CCH), surgical therapy (penile plication or excision with grafting), or oral therapy (vitamin E, colchicine, or pentoxifylline).14 Patients who were undergoing penile prosthetic surgery for concurrent erectile dysfunction were excluded.

Exposure and Covariates

Being diagnosed with PD as a Kaiser Permanente patient > 18 years of age between 2004 and 2020 was the primary exposure. The diagnosis of PD must have occurred during the years 2004–2020 and been made by a practitioner. Demographic information, including age, sex, race, and ethnicity, was collected from the EMR. Kaiser Permanente’s EMR collects self-reported race and ethnicity data and includes stratifications of Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, White, unknown, and other. Comorbidities for patients with PD, including hypertension, erectile dysfunction, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidemia, were identified from the EMR and were identified as potential confounders.

Outcomes and Statistical Analysis

Primary outcomes included the annual incidence of PD from 2004 to 2020 among men ≥ 18 years of age, as well as annual rates of CCH therapy, surgical therapy, and oral medication, including pentoxifylline, colchicine, and vitamin E. Events of PD were identified using International Statistical Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code 607.85 and International Statistical Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) code N48.6.15,16 Initiation of the type of therapy was ascertained using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, which were linked and used alongside pharmacy records obtained from the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System to identify the type of therapies initiated. Injection therapy was identified using CPT codes 54200 and 54205, in addition to identifying the usage of CCH per the inpatient and outpatient pharmacy databases.15,16 Surgical therapy was identified using CPT codes 54110, 54112, and 54360.16 The use of oral therapy was identified using pharmacy databases. The American Urological Association guidelines on PD in 2015 reported that vitamin E was found to have no significant efficacy for the treatment of PD, and the present study aimed to evaluate whether changes in prescription corresponded to these guidelines.17
The annual incidence of PD was reported for all years from 2004 to 2020 and was reported using the annual new onset of PD among males in Kaiser Permanente Southern California ≥ 18 years of age as the numerator and the annual number of males ≥ 18 years of age as the denominator. Similar methods were utilized to calculate and assess the change in surgical treatment (grafting/plication), CCH injection use, and oral medication as treatment for PD. The change in incidence of PD and treatment for PD from 2004 to 2020 was assessed using slope estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with corresponding P values.
Baseline characteristics between treatment groups (surgical vs injection) for PD were compared using the Chi-squared test for categorical variables and the Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables. Descriptive and multivariable logistic regression modeling was also implemented to ascertain which demographic or comorbidity recorded, in addition to time-to-follow-up, were more likely to influence whether patients received injection vs surgical therapy for their PD.

Results

Participant Characteristics

A total of 11,706 patients with PD were identified (mean age = 56.0 years, standard deviation = 11.58); 6384 (54.5%) were White, 3527 (30.1%) Hispanic, 383 (3.3%) Asian/Pacific Islander, 836 (7.1%) Black, and 577 (4.9%) other or unknown. Of the 11,706 patients with PD, 2544 (21.7%) had erectile dysfunction, 3877 (33.1%) had hypertension, and 1578 (13.5%) had type 2 diabetes mellitus (Table 1). Among all patients, 253 (2.2%) received injection therapy and 356 (3.04%) received surgical therapy. Those who received injection therapy had an average follow-up in 790.7 days, whereas those who received surgical therapy had a shorter follow-up, on average 413.0 days (P < .05). Neither group had significant differences in average age or comorbidities; the mean age for the injection group was 57.5 (9.09) years and the surgical group 56.2 (10.09) years, P > .05. However, stratification of age into subgroups (< 45, 45–54, 55–64, and ≥ 65 years) showed that a larger number of older patients received surgical therapy vs injection therapy, P < .05 (Table 1).
Table 1: Demographics across treatment type
CharacteristicsTotal sample
(N = 11,706)
Received injection therapy a (n = 253)Received surgical therapy a (n = 356)P value b
Time of follow-up (d) c   .0007
 N or n11,706253356 
 Mean (SD)1820.6 (1610.73)790.7 (1070.88)413.0 (460.38) 
 Median1284.5367296 
 Q1, Q3473.0, 2897.0182.0, 856.0146.0, 497.5 
 Range(1.0–6188.0)(1.0–5717.0)(1.0–3507.0) 
Age at index, y   .7799
 N11,706253356 
 Mean (SD)56.0 (11.58)57.5 (9.09)56.2 (10.08) 
 Median585758 
 Q1, Q350.0, 64.052.0, 63.052.0, 63.0 
 Range(18.0–95.0)(22.0–84.0)(19.0–79.0) 
Age group, y, n (%)   .0086
  < 451641 (14)13 (5.1)38 (10.7) 
 45–542817 (24.1)79 (31.2)78 (21.9) 
 55–644581 (39.1)108 (42.7)172 (48.3) 
 ≥ 652667 (22.8)53 (20.9)68 (19.1) 
Race or ethnicity, n (%)   .038
 White6384 (54.5)148 (58.5)186 (52.2) 
 Hispanic3527 (30.1)78 (30.8)136 (38.2) 
 Asian/Pacific Islander382 (3.3)2 (0.8)8 (2.2) 
 Black836 (7.1)18 (7.1)24 (6.7) 
 Others or unknown577 (4.9)7 (2.8)2 (0.6) 
History of erectile dysfunction, n (%)   .2591
 No9162 (78.3)197 (77.9)263 (73.9) 
 Yes2544 (21.7)56 (22.1)93 (26.1) 
History of hypertension, n (%)   .2449
 No7829 (66.9)162 (64)244 (68.5) 
 Yes3877 (33.1)91 (36)112 (31.5) 
History of T2DM, n (%)   .4053
 No10,128 (86.5)220 (87)301 (84.6) 
 Yes1578 (13.5)33 (13)55 (15.4) 
History of hyperlipidemia, n (%)   .1046
 No7457 (63.7)150 (59.3)234 (65.7) 
 Yes4249 (36.3)103 (40.7)122 (34.3) 
a
Based on the first therapy received from the date of first-ever recorded diagnosis of PD.
b
P value for the comparison between patients who received injection therapy and patients who received surgical therapy (χ2 test for categorical variables and Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables).
c
Number of days from the index date until the date of first injection/surgical therapy, death, disenrollment from Health Plan, or the end of study period (December 31, 2020), whichever came first.
PD, Peyronie’s disease; Q, quartile; SD, standard deviation; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Primary and Secondary Outcomes

From 2004 to 2020, 11,706 patients presented for PD management, and the average incident rate was 52.8 per 100,000 eligible members. The rate of new PD diagnosis per 100,000 patients increased by 0.37 every year, P < .05 (Figure 1). Over the study period, the incident rate of surgical management per 1000 eligible patients declined on average at a rate of 0.40 each year (P < .001), although there was an increase rate of 1.19 (P < .001) for CCH injection therapy (Table 2). Following the FDA approval of CCH in 2013, the average incident rate (per 1000 eligible patients) for surgical therapy between 2014 and 2020 declined by 2.8 (P < .001) compared to that in 2004–2013, whereas it significantly increased by 5.1 (P < .001) for injection therapy (Figure 2). Average rates of oral colchicine and vitamin E significantly decreased (P < .001), although average rates of prescribing pentoxifylline significantly increased (P < .001) from 2016 to 2020 compared to 2004 to 2015 (Figure 3). Patients presenting in the post-CCH era were approximately 2 times significantly more likely to receive injection therapy (adjusted odds ratio = 2.08; P < .001; 95% CI = 1.47–2.94). On multivariable modeling, patients more likely to receive injection therapy as primary treatment for PD were 45–54 years of age (adjusted odds ratio = 2.77; P = .002; 95% CI = 1.34–5.73).
Figure 1: Annual incident rate of Peyronie’s disease.
Figure 2: Annual incident rates of surgical and injection therapy for the treatment of Peyronie’s disease. FDA = US Food and Drug Administration.
Figure 3: Annual incident rates of oral medications for the treatment of Peyronie’s disease. AUA = American Urological Association.
Table 2: Averages and slope estimates of treatment for Peyronie’s disease
Description of dataSlope estimateP value
Slope of trend of PD diagnosis from 2004 to 20200.366< .001
Average incidence of PD in 2014–2020 vs 2004–2013–0.152.884
Slope of trend for CCH injection therapy for PD from 2004 to 20201.192< .001
Average rate of CCH injection in 2014–2020 vs 2004–20139.897< .001
Slope of trend for surgical therapy (grafting/plication) from 2004 to 2020–0.397< .001
Average rate of surgical therapy (grafting/plication) in 2014–2020 vs 2004–2013–1.507.004
Slope of trend for pentoxifylline as a form of pharmaceutical therapy from 2004 to 20201.766< .001
Average rate of pentoxifylline as a form of pharmaceutical therapy in 2016–2020 vs 2004–201510.124< .001
Slope of trend for colchicine as a form of pharmaceutical therapy from 2004 to 2020–1.491< .001
Average rate of colchicine as a form of pharmaceutical therapy in 2016–2020 vs 2004–2015–9.539< .001
Slope of trend for vitamin E as a form of pharmaceutical therapy from 2004 to 2020–1.053< .001
Average rate of vitamin E as a form of pharmaceutical therapy in 2016–2020 vs 2004–2015–8.657< .001
CCH, collagenase Clostridium histolyticum; PD, Peyronie’s disease.

Discussion

Key Results

In this retrospective analysis, the authors found the incidence of new PD diagnosis per 100,000 patients to increase by 0.366 (P < .05) every year, suggesting a slight overall increase in the incidence of PD. When comparing oral therapies for PD, this study found colchicine to be the most prescribed oral treatment from 2004 to mid-to-late 2012, at which point pentoxifylline became the most prescribed oral treatment up until 2020. The American Urological Association’s 2015 guidelines stated that vitamin E lacked efficacy for the treatment of PD, and the present study’s results indicate the average usage of vitamin E to be –8.6 (P < .05) from 2016 to 2020 vs 2004 to 2015, suggesting that the guidelines played a role in the reduction of oral therapy. Moreover, the present study’s results illustrate an increased average rate of 9.9 (P < .05) in CCH injection use as a treatment of PD after its FDA approval, followed by a subsequent reduction in annual rates of surgery by 1.5 (P < .05). This study’s regression analysis illustrates that post-CCH era patients and those 44–55 years of age were 2.8 times more likely to receive injection therapy, highlighting the impact of the FDA approval of CCH, as well as the individual-level patient and physician shared decision-making that may have accounted for the differences in the treatment of PD across the age groups.

Limitations

Although the present study adjusted for confounders for logistic regression, this study’s results could have been impacted by unknown confounders. Moreover, the present study assessed only changes in trends of PD incidence and treatment patterns and hence did not evaluate or illicit individual changes among patients or situations where multiple therapies may have been used. This study also had some degree of overlap with the COVID-19 period, which may have accounted for the changes seen from 2019 to 2020; however, the authors could not quantify that impact. Lastly, although the present study discussed changes in the trends of treatment for PD, it did not provide information on whether these trends were supported by changes in outcomes for PD.

Interpretation

Other studies with similar methodology have shown that patients who receive injection therapy were more likely to be younger and more likely to have sought treatment in the post-CCH era as opposed to those who receive surgical therapy.18 The present study’s results concur with those results, as the authors likewise found that patients were more likely to receive injection therapy in the post-CCH era, and with a greater magnitude. Another study looking at data from 2007 to 2018 found that the estimated annual incidence of PD increased from 61 to 77 per 100,000, and they found that the most common oral treatment was initially colchicine around 2007 but that pentoxifylline treatment became more common around 2018, and CCH became the most common injection treatment after its FDA approval.19 They also identified how the implementation of CCH injections drove the increase in the cost to treat PD by ~500%.19 The present study agrees with these results, as the authors also found colchicine to be the most prescribed oral treatment until mid-to-late 2012, at which point pentoxifylline became the most prescribed oral treatment up until 2020. Additionally, the present study also supports the increase in CCH injections used for the treatment of PD after its December 2023 FDA approval, although further analysis would be needed to understand the changes in the cost to treat PD among this population.

Generalizability

The data utilized in this study came from Kaiser Permanente Southern California, which is an integrated health care model. Although Kaiser Permanente Southern California data represent diverse populations, the present study results may not apply to areas not in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California region and to hospitals and clinics that do not utilize an integrated health care model.

Conclusion

This study elucidated that the most common form of oral treatment for PD was colchicine from the early 2000s until around 2012 but that pentoxifylline was the most common form from 2013 to 2020. Moreover, the authors illustrated that the FDA approval of CCH injections led to an increase in its usage, and it is now more commonly utilized than surgery as a form of treatment for PD.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their gratitude to the patients for their contributions, including the use of data from the electronic health record.

Footnotes

Author Contributions
Kavenpreet Singh Bal, MS, Priyanka Achalu, BS, Michael O Okene, MD, Aaron Krug, MD, Tung-Chin Hsieh, MD, and Hossein Mirheydar, MD, FACS, conceived and planned the research study and contributed to the interpretation and discussion of the results. Kavenpreet Singh Bal, MS, Priyanka Achalu, BS, and Michael O Okene, MD, completed the data collection, literature review, and methodology discussions. Kavenpreet Singh Bal, MS, led the writing of the manuscript. All authors helped shape the research question, analysis, and provided critical feedback throughout the process.
Data-Sharing Statement
Readers may contact the corresponding author to request further underlying data.

References

1.
Sandean DP, Lotfollahzadeh S. Peyronie Disease. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2023. Accessed 28 August 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560628/
2.
Cwikla DJ, Yafi FA. Intralesional collagenase Clostridium histolyticum in the management of Peyronie’s disease: Current best practice. Ther Adv Urol. 2018;10(4):139–153.
3.
Gelbard MK, Dorey F, James K. The natural history of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol. 1990;144(6):1376–1379.
4.
Water L. Mechanisms by which fibrin and fibronectin appear in healing wounds. J Urol. 1997;157:306–310.
5.
Miner MM, Seftel AD. Peyronie’s disease: Epidemiology, diagnosis, and management. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(1):113–120.
6.
Segal RL, Burnett AL. Surgical management for Peyronie’s disease. World J Mens Health. 2013;31(1):1–11.
7.
Mirheydar H, Hsieh T, Krug A, Aleman M. The effect of collagenase clostridium histolyticum injection on the treatment patterns of Peyronie’s disease: An analysis of large health care system over 15-year period. J Sex Med. 2022;19(suppl 1):S86–S87.
8.
Mefford AT, Raheem O, Yafi FA, Alzweri LM. Peyronie’s disease – outcomes of collagenase clostridium histolyticum injection: A systematic review. Arab J Urol. 2021;19(3):363–369.
9.
Carson CC 3rd, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Tursi JP, et al. Analysis of the clinical safety of intralesional injection of collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CCH) for adults with Peyronie’s disease (PD). BJU Int. 2015;116(5):815–822.
10.
Müller A, Mulhall JP. Peyronie’s disease intervention trials: Methodological challenges and issues. J Sex Med. 2009;6(3):848–861.
11.
Koebnick C, Langer-Gould AM, Gould MK, et al. Sociodemographic characteristics of members of a large, integrated health care system: comparison with US Census Bureau data. Perm J. 2012;16(3):37–41.
12.
Ross TR, Ng D, Brown JS, et al. The HMO Research Network Virtual Data Warehouse: A public data model to support collaboration. EGEMS. 2014;2(1):1049.
13.
Chen W, Xie F, Mccarthy DP, et al. Research data warehouse: Using electronic health records to conduct population-based observational studies. JAMIA Open. 2023;6(2):ooad039.
14.
Smith JF, Shindel AW, Huang Y-C, et al. Pentoxifylline treatment and penile calcifications in men with Peyronie’s disease. Asian J Androl. 2011;13(2):322–325.
15.
Sun AJ, Li S, Eisenberg ML. The impact of clostridium histolyticum collagenase on the prevalence and management of Peyronie’s disease in the United States. World J Mens Health. 2019;37(2):234–239.
16.
Moghalu OI, Das R, Horns J, Campbell A, Hotaling JM, Pastuszak AW. Regional variation in the incidence and prevalence of Peyronie’s disease in the United States - results from an encounters and claims database. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34(1):64–70.
17.
Nehra A, Alterowitz R, Culkin DJ, et al. Peyronie’s disease: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2015;194(3):745–753.
18.
Sukumar S, Pijush DB, Brandes S. Impact of the advent of collagenase clostridium histolyticum on the surgical management of Peyronie’s disease: A population-based analysis. J Sex Med. 2020;17(1):111–116.
19.
Loftus CJ, Rajanahally S, Holt SK, Raheem OA, Ostrowski KA, Walsh TJ. Treatment trends and cost associated with Peyronie’s disease. Sex Med. 2020;8(4):673–678.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image The Permanente Journal
The Permanente Journal
Preprint
Pages: 1 - 7
PubMed: 39639714

Keywords:

  1. Peyronie’s Disease
  2. erectile dysfunction
  3. penile injury
  4. connective tissue disorder
  5. Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum
  6. colchicine
  7. Vitamin E
  8. pentoxifylline

Notes

An abstract of this manuscript was previously presented at SMSNA 2023. Reproduced with permission from The Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Authors

Affiliations

Kaiser Permanente Bernard J Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA, USA
Kaiser Permanente Bernard J Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA, USA
Michael O Okene, MD
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Aaron Krug, MD
Huntington Hospital, Pasadena, CA, USA
Tung-Chin Hsieh, MD
University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
Hossein Mirheydar, MD, FACS https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1720-4106
Kaiser Permanente Bernard J Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA, USA
Kaiser Permanente Baldwin Park, Baldwin Park, CA, USA

Notes

Kavenpreet Singh Bal, MS Kavenpreet.S.Bal@kp.org

Conflicts of Interest

None declared

Funding

None declared

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.

View Options

View options

PDF

View PDF

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media