4.6 Article

Double-blind, crossover comparison of 3 mg apomorphine SL with placebo and with 4 mg apomorphine SL in male erectile dysfunction

Journal

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 558-563

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000052503

Keywords

apomorphine SL; crossover study; dopamine agonist; erectile dysfunction; risk-benefit ratio

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To establish the efficacy and safety of a fixed, 3-mg dose of apomorphine SL compared with placebo, and to compare 3 mg with 4 mg apomorphine SL in patients with erectile dysfunction. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, crossover study included 296 heterosexual men with ED of various etiologies and severities. Two crossover groups were evaluated separately: 3 mg apomorphine SL vs. placebo (n = 194), and 3 vs. 4 mg apomorphine SL (n = 102). The primary efficacy variable was the percentage of attempts resulting in erections firm enough for intercourse; additional variables included the percentage of attempts resulting in intercourse and time to erection. Partner assessments were also analyzed. Results: 3 mg apomorphine SL was significantly more effective than placebo (p <0.001) for the percentage of attempts resulting in erections firm enough for intercourse and resulting in intercourse, as assessed by both patients and partners. Median time to erection was 18.8 min. The 3-mg dose was not significantly different from 4 mg in the evaluation of efficacy variables, but the incidence of adverse events was higher with 4 mg. Nausea was the most common event, reported by 3.3% of patients on 3 mg vs. 14.1% on 4 mg; in the placebo comparison, nausea was reported by 7.0% of patients taking 3 mg apomorphine SL vs. 1.1% of those taking placebo. Conclusions: 3 mg apomorphine SL was significantly more effective than placebo and comparable to 4 mg, while offering an improved risk-benefit ratio. Copyright (C) 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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