Premature Ejaculation: Past, Present, and Future Perspectives

Many factors currently limit the development of optimal management strategies for premature ejaculation (PE). Critically, there are no universally accepted criteria for diagnosis of the condition, making identification of patients difficult. Furthermore, this absence of a clear clinical definition impedes accurate estimates of the prevalence of PE, although most healthcare professionals accept that it is the most common form of sexual dysfunction in men [ 1 Rosen R.C. Prevalence and risk factors of sexual dysfunction in men and women. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2000; 2: 189-1895 Crossref PubMed Scopus (204) Google Scholar , 2 Laumann E.O. Nicolosi A. Glasser D.B. Paik A. Gingel C. Moreira E. Wang T. Sexual problems among women and men aged 40–80 y: Prevalence and correlates identified in the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors. Int J Impot Res. 2005; 17: 39-57 Crossref PubMed Scopus (985) Google Scholar ]. Another important factor is the lack of normative data on ejaculatory latency time and any clear understanding of the difference between “normal” and “dysfunctional” ejaculatory latency. This presents an additional barrier to patient identification and limits the physician's capacity to properly evaluate and compare therapeutic strategies. In addition, there also remain significant patient‐centered barriers to identification and diagnosis. Premature ejaculation patients often feel stigmatized by the condition and are often too embarrassed to discuss the condition with their physician [ 3 Symonds T. Roblin D. Hart K. Althof S. How does premature ejaculation impact a mans life?. J Sex Marital Ther. 2003; 29: 361-370 Crossref PubMed Scopus (198) Google Scholar ].