4.4 Article

Safety and efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine, Qiaoshao formula, combined with dapoxetine in the treatment of premature ejaculation: An open-label, real-life, retrospective multicentre study in Chinese men

期刊

ANDROLOGIA
卷 53, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/and.13915

关键词

Chinese traditional medicine; dapoxetine; premature ejaculation; Qiaoshao formula

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81273930, 81873182]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Combined therapy with Qiaoshao formula and dapoxetine is safe and effective in treating premature ejaculation, especially for patients with severe symptoms and younger age. The treatment significantly prolongs perceived intravaginal ejaculation latency time and improves overall satisfaction of patients and their partners.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of Chinese medicine, Qiaoshao formula combined with dapoxetine was used for the treatment of premature ejaculation in a real-life setting. Nine hundred and five males diagnosed with premature ejaculation were reviewed in this retrospective cohort study. We divided the patients into two groups: dapoxetine alone and Qiaoshao formula combined with dapoxetine according to actual interventions provided to patients in clinics. The perceived intravaginal ejaculation latency time and the premature ejaculation profile measures markedly improved in both groups. However, in men with severe premature ejaculation (baseline perceived intravaginal ejaculation latency time <1 min) and those with baseline age <= 30 years, the perceived intravaginal ejaculation latency time was slightly but significantly longer with combined therapy than with dapoxetine alone (p < .05). Therefore, combined therapy involving the Qiaoshao formula and dapoxetine proved to safe as well as effective for treating premature ejaculation while prolonging the perceived intravaginal ejaculation latency time, which significantly improved the overall satisfaction of the patient and likely that of the couple.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据