Current available treatment options for erectile dysfunction (ED) are effective but not without failure and/or side effects. Although the development of phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors (i.e. sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil) has revolutionized the treatment of ED, these oral medications require on-demand access and are not as effective in treating ED related to diabetic, post-prostatectomy and severe veno-occlusive disease states. Improvement in the treatment of ED is dependent on understanding the regulation of human corporal smooth muscle tone and on the identification of relevant molecular targets. Future ED therapies might consider the application of molecular technologies such as gene therapy. As a potential therapeutic tool, gene therapy might provide an effective and specific means for altering intracavernous pressure "on demand" without affecting resting penile function. However, the safety of gene therapy remains a major hurdle to overcome before being accepted as a mainstream treatment for ED. Gene therapy aims to cure the underlying conditions in ED, including fibrosis. Furthermore, gene therapy might help prolong the efficacy of the PDE5 inhibitors by improving penile nitric oxide bioactivity. It is feasible to apply gene therapy to the penis because of its location and accessibility, low penile circulatory flow in the flaccid state and the presence of endothelial lined (lacunar) spaces. This review provides a brief insight of the current role of gene therapy in the management of ED.
3',5'-Cyclic-GMP Phosphodiesterases ; antagonists & inhibitors ; Cyclic Nucleotide Phosphodiesterases, Type 5 ; Erectile Dysfunction ; drug therapy ; genetics ; therapy ; Gene Transfer Techniques ; Genetic Therapy ; adverse effects ; Humans ; Male ; Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors ; therapeutic use ; Vasodilator Agents ; therapeutic use

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g., silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient’s life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g., silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient’s life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.