MP65-07 ADHERENCE TO COLLAGENASE CLOSTRIDIUM HISTOLYTICUM LABEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROVIDER SATISFACTION: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SEXUAL MEDICINE MEMBERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Peyronie’s Disease (MP65)1 Apr 2019MP65-07 ADHERENCE TO COLLAGENASE CLOSTRIDIUM HISTOLYTICUM LABEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROVIDER SATISFACTION: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SEXUAL MEDICINE MEMBERS Alex Galante*, Thomas Masterson, Mohit Butaney, Alexander Pastuszak, Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad, and Ranjith Ramasamy Alex Galante*Alex Galante* More articles by this author , Thomas MastersonThomas Masterson More articles by this author , Mohit ButaneyMohit Butaney More articles by this author , Alexander PastuszakAlexander Pastuszak More articles by this author , Hossein Sadeghi-NejadHossein Sadeghi-Nejad More articles by this author , and Ranjith RamasamyRanjith Ramasamy More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556919.80483.5bAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH, Xiaflex) is the only FDA-approved medication for treatment of Peyronie’s disease since 2013. It is unclear how practitioners actually use CCH in their own practices. The objectives of the study were: 1) to identify variability in practice patterns for CCH among practitioners, 2) to assess adherence to the package insert instructions and 3) to evaluate whether provider satisfaction was associated with adherence to instructions. METHODS: A 30-question online survey was distributed to 1,270 members of the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) from the EU, USA, Canada and Australia. Of the 30 questions, 10 survey questions had only one response consistent with the CCH package insert recommendations. An adherence score was calculated for each survey participant depending on how many of these questions were answered correctly. The average adherence scores of various groups were compared using a t-test. A chi-squared test was used to determine association between categorical variables. RESULTS: Of 202 total responses, 132 practitioners reported using CCH out of 1,270 ISSM members from countries where CCH is available (10.4% response rate). Practitioners from the USA had significantly better adherence scores than those outside the USA (average 7.7 vs 5.9, p<0.001). Practitioners from outside the USA were more likely to be satisfied with CCH (p=0.006), and more experienced users (>20 uses) were more likely to be satisfied than less experienced users (<10 uses) (p=0.046). Satisfied users of CCH did not have significantly different adherence scores than non-satisfied users. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be wide variability in CCH practice patterns among the international urology community. Even though 67% of practitioners believed they followed the package insert guidelines, only 11% adhered to all the recommendations evaluated by the survey. More experienced users and practitioners outside the USA tended to be more satisfied with the product. Treatment adherence to package insert guidelines dose not appear to be associated with provider satisfaction. Source of Funding: none Gainesville, FL; Miami, FL; Salt Lake City, UT; Newark, NJ; Miami, FL© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e952-e952 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Alex Galante* More articles by this author Thomas Masterson More articles by this author Mohit Butaney More articles by this author Alexander Pastuszak More articles by this author Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad More articles by this author Ranjith Ramasamy More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".