4.6 Article

The efficacy and safety of flexible-dose vardenafil (Levitra®) in a broad population of European men

Journal

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
Volume 45, Issue 5, Pages 634-641

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.01.014

Keywords

erectile dysfunction; vardenafil; phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors; clinical trials

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. In fixed-dose studies, vardenafil 5, 10, and 20 mg improves erectile function in men with erectile dysfunction (ED). Here, the efficacy and tolerability of vardenafil when used in a flexible-dose regimen was assessed. Methods: In this multicenter trial, 323 patients randomly received vardenafil 10 mg or placebo. After 4 weeks, patients could switch to 5 or 20 mg (or corresponding placebo), or remain on 10 mg for an additional 4 weeks; dose-switching was optional for the last 4 weeks. Efficacy variables included the IIEF-EF domain score, GAQ, and percentage of positive responses to SEP2/SEP3 questions. Results: The IIEF-EF domain score significantly improved from a baseline of moderate ED (12.6-13.1) to mild ED in men on vardenafil (21.0-24.2) compared with placebo (13.7-15.6) at weeks 4, 8, 12, and last observation carried forward (LOCF) (p < 0.005 vs. placebo). A significantly greater proportion of men receiving vardenafil at weeks 4, 8, 12, and LOCF reported improved erections (80-86% vs. 21-36% for placebo, p < 0.005). Successful SEP2 rates increased after vardenafil, reaching 84% at weeks 8 and 12 vs. 49-53% receiving placebo (p < 0.005 vs. placebo). Vardenafil improved successful SEP3 rates ranging from 58% to 74% compared to 22-34% for placebo. The most common adverse events, flushing and headache, were generally mild and transient. Conclusion: In this flexible dose study, vardenafil was well-tolerated, and produced clinically relevant improvements in erectile function in men with ED. (C) 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available