Objective and Subjective Measures of Premature Ejaculation: How Closely Do They Correspond and How Well Are the...

Clinical trials evaluating new treatments for premature ejaculation (PE) should ideally include both objective end points and patient reported outcomes (PROs), but there is no consensus currently over the optimal measures or combination of outcomes. In addition, many PROs use a 1-month recall period, despite concerns about potential recall bias.

Data from a clinical trial of men with lifelong PE were used to examine the consistency of 2 core items of the Premature Ejaculation Profile (PEP), a widely used PRO for assessing subjective aspects of PE. The specific aim was to assess the level of agreement between the original 1-month recall version compared with a new event-based version of the scale in men meeting current definitions of lifelong PE. A further aim was to investigate the convergent validity between an objective end point of intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT), subjective PEP responses, and a patient's Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) measure.

For assessment of consistency of PEP responses (short-term [ie, sexual event driven] vs 1-month recall), descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients (Pearson and Spearman), and Bland-Altman plots are presented for each time interval. For assessment of convergent validity, descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients (Pearson and Spearman) are presented for each assessment with geometric mean IELT values. Results are also depicted graphically. Geometric mean IELT over the last 4 weeks of treatment and change from baseline (absolute and fold change) were estimated via a general linear model for each category of change in PEP and CGIC, adjusting for baseline IELT.

PEP items administered via 1-month recall and short-term event-driven responses gave virtually identical results. There was a strong correlation (very good convergent validity) between IELT and responses to PEP and the CGIC.

Men with lifelong PE can accurately recall their level of sexual functioning over the previous month. The PEP and CGIC are appropriate instruments to measure the subjective response of men with PE to new treatments.

Our analyses address gaps in previously published research on PE assessment methodology. Men with acquired PE, men without partners, and men in homosexual relationships were not studied.

In a clinical trial setting, PEP and CGIC are appropriate end points and are likely the optimal combination of PROs for use with IELT to enable a global assessment of patient response to new PE treatments. Althof S, Rosen R, Harty B, et al. Objective and Subjective Measures of Premature Ejaculation: How Closely Do They Correspond and How Well Are the Subjective Measures Recalled? J Sex Med 2020;17:634-644.